Saint_;1511879 wrote: In the beginning, God created Evolution and He saw that it worked great. Why can't evolution be a part of the processes of the Universe? He created radioactive decay, star life cycles, atomic physics, but he can't create evolution as a process? Kind of underrating Him, aren't you?
Of course God could have created everything through evolution, but did He? Not if you believe Him who said; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Nowhere in Scripture does God suggest He created everything through evolution.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1511880 wrote: Open Systems
‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
• usable energy is running out
• information tends to get scrambled
• order tends towards disorder
• a random jumble won’t organize itself
•
It also depends on the type of system:
• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: answers to critics - creation.com
That is a very creative collection of claptrap.
‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
• usable energy is running out
• information tends to get scrambled
• order tends towards disorder
• a random jumble won’t organize itself
•
It also depends on the type of system:
• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: answers to critics - creation.com
That is a very creative collection of claptrap.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1511884 wrote: That is a very creative collection of claptrap.
Evidence free denial of the facts.
Evidence free denial of the facts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint and LarsMac Great posts. They're still trying to make God do what they want. Demeaning to the Divine to say the least.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1511885 wrote: Evidence free denial of the facts.
Show me a fact that was denied.
Pretty much everything you post is in denial of truth.
Show me a fact that was denied.
Pretty much everything you post is in denial of truth.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Fossil Gaps 14
g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.
[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]
It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]
h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1511897 wrote:
Fossil Gaps 14
g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.
[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]
It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]
h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
More opinion and out-of-context quotes. Argument is not evidence.
Fossil Gaps 14
g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.
[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]
It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]
h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
More opinion and out-of-context quotes. Argument is not evidence.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Fossil Gaps 15
i. “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.
Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.
A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm. [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
Bird and theropod “hands differ. Theropods have “fingers I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds. [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy. [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512003 wrote:
Fossil Gaps 15
i. “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.
Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.
A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm. [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
Bird and theropod “hands differ. Theropods have “fingers I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds. [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy. [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
You should really read up on some of the new stuff that has come out in the last decade.
Try this:
The origin and early evolution of birds: discoveries, disputes,
and perspectives from fossil evidence
Fossil Gaps 15
i. “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.
Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.
A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm. [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
Bird and theropod “hands differ. Theropods have “fingers I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds. [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy. [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
You should really read up on some of the new stuff that has come out in the last decade.
Try this:
The origin and early evolution of birds: discoveries, disputes,
and perspectives from fossil evidence
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512024 wrote: You should really read up on some of the new stuff that has come out in the last decade.
Try this:
The origin and early evolution of birds: discoveries, disputes,
and perspectives from fossil evidence
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird?
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18)
Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related. Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage. It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird? | The Institute for Creation Research
Try this:
The origin and early evolution of birds: discoveries, disputes,
and perspectives from fossil evidence
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird?
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18)
Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related. Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage. It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird? | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512039 wrote: What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird?
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18)
Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related. Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage. It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird? | The Institute for Creation Research
Actually, most folks are just following the evidence to see where it leads.
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18)
Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related. Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage. It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird? | The Institute for Creation Research
Actually, most folks are just following the evidence to see where it leads.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Fossil Gaps 16
Theropod “arms (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.
“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx . Hinchliffe, p. 597.
See “What Was Archaeopteryx? [here ].
Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.
j. “When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural. ... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known ... William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.
“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record. A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.
“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. Lyall Watson, “The Water People, Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.
k. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids. Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512225 wrote:
Fossil Gaps 16
Theropod “arms (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.
“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx . Hinchliffe, p. 597.
See “What Was Archaeopteryx? [here ].
Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.
j. “When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural. ... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known ... William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.
“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record. A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.
“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. Lyall Watson, “The Water People, Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.
k. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids. Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
You seem to be rambling, of late.
No direction home?
Is all of that supposed to count as "evidence"
Fossil Gaps 16
Theropod “arms (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.
“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx . Hinchliffe, p. 597.
See “What Was Archaeopteryx? [here ].
Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.
j. “When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural. ... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known ... William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.
“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record. A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.
“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. Lyall Watson, “The Water People, Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.
k. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids. Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
You seem to be rambling, of late.
No direction home?
Is all of that supposed to count as "evidence"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512227 wrote: You seem to be rambling, of late.
No direction home?
Is all of that supposed to count as "evidence"
Yes, unless you discount the testimony of scientists.
No direction home?
Is all of that supposed to count as "evidence"
Yes, unless you discount the testimony of scientists.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512233 wrote: Yes, unless you discount the testimony of scientists.
What you offer here is opinions of "Scientists" rather than testimony. And for the most part, opinions based on 30-50 year old data.
Not exactly "Science" and it fails to prove/disprove anything.
What you offer here is opinions of "Scientists" rather than testimony. And for the most part, opinions based on 30-50 year old data.
Not exactly "Science" and it fails to prove/disprove anything.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512238 wrote: What you offer here is opinions of "Scientists" rather than testimony. And for the most part, opinions based on 30-50 year old data.
Not exactly "Science" and it fails to prove/disprove anything.
Except the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 2
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2
Not exactly "Science" and it fails to prove/disprove anything.
Except the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 2
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512243 wrote: Except the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 2
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2
What you offer here is opinions of "Scientists" rather than testimony. And for the most part, opinions based on 30-50 year old data.
Not exactly "Science" and it fails to prove/disprove anything.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 2
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2
What you offer here is opinions of "Scientists" rather than testimony. And for the most part, opinions based on 30-50 year old data.
Not exactly "Science" and it fails to prove/disprove anything.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac great posts. As for the opposition LOL Some people love to live in the primordial times. Most of the stuff Pahu posts is from wannabe scientists. > If people choose to believe in Unicorns then God for it. believing does not make it happen.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512244 wrote: What you offer here is opinions of "Scientists" rather than testimony. And for the most part, opinions based on 30-50 year old data.
Where does the 30-50 year old data conflict with what the scientists say?
Not exactly "Science" and it fails to prove/disprove anything.
Except the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER: 1
The material which is in the stars, planets, and you—did not come into existence by itself. There never was a Big Bang, and stars cannot evolve from gas. Here are scientific facts to prove it. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Origin of Matter: 1
The Strange Theory: Why was it invented?
Science vs. the Big Bang: 42 scientific reasons why it is an impossible theory
Page numbers without book references refer to our book, ORIGIN OF MATTER, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
THE STRANGE THEORY
Why was such a peculiar theory invented? It runs contrary to all logic and common sense.
The evolutionists' problem was how to explain away the fact that everything in nature exists. They have used theories, which they call cosmology, to explain how matter and stars could have come into existence.
We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic 92 natural elements, but where did matter come from? How did it get all over the universe in the form of planets and stars? How did the complicated and delicately balanced solar systems and galaxies form? What keeps them in balance? And how did the laws which govern matter originate?
A fairy tale, called the Big Bang, was invented to account for the first two questions; the other questions have pretty much been ignored by the evolutionists. Here is their theory, followed by the facts repudiating it:
The evolutionists' solution. A fantastic theory was invented, called the Big Bang, which declared that everything once exploded out of nothing! Clothed in scientific language and mathematical formulas, the theory was called "scientific." But, as you will learn here, it is not.
The theory is a fraud. Both wiser scientists and common sense have refuted it, but these facts are not well-known. You will here find a summary of many of their findings. These facts annihilate the Big Bang theory.
Science fiction. Several men dreamed up the Big Bang idea in the 1920s and 1940s. A research scientist and science-fiction writer, *George Gamow, led out in promoting it to the scientific community. He used cartoons to illustrate it.—pp. 13-14.
Here is what the Big Bang theory teaches:
When nothing gets together. The emptiness is supposed to have gathered together in one place, and gotten so thick that the "nothing" exploded—and blew itself into hydrogen gas.—p. 14.
Laws appear. The laws of nature somehow invented themselves during the explosion.—p. 14.
Gas gets into clumps. Then the outward exploding gas supposedly gathered itself into clumps.—pp. 14-15.
A universe of explosions. The loose, outward flowing gas next decided to push itself into stars. Then all the stars began exploding in super-nova explosions. But, just before light rays from the explosions could reach our planet in our time in history, the explosions are said to have conveniently stopped.—p. 15.
Heavier elements made. Those explosions are supposed to have made all the heavier elements (those above hydrogen and helium).
Rearranging time. In order to adapt to the theory, the supposed age of the universe has been pushed back to a theoretical age of 15 billion years, when the Big Bang is said to have occurred.—p. 15.
SCIENCE VS. THE BIG BANG
Here are 42 reasons why the Big Bang is foolishness. These are scientific facts which disprove the theory of fog coming out of nothing and pressing itself into stars:
1: Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.—p. 15.
2: Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.—p. 15.
3: Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.—pp. 15-16.
4: No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.—p. 16.
5: No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.—p. 16.
6: No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas moves from high density to low density, not the other way around.—p. 16.
7: No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity.—p. 16.
8: No way to produce complex atoms. Aside from hydrogen and helium, which are quite simple, there is no way that loose gas in space can form itself into complex atoms (elements above helium).—p. 16.
9: No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.—pp. 16-17.
10: No way to compress loose hydrogen gas. There is no way that loose hydrogen could push itself into a solid or semi-solid out in space.—p. 17.
11: Not enough time. There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a 20-billion light-year universe and then change itself into billions of stars, before the explosions were theoretically supposed to have stopped.—pp. 17-18.
12: No way to produce enough of the heavier elements. Even if hydrogen explosions could produce heavier elements, there are several other reasons why it could not produce enough of them.—p. 18.
13: Elemental composition of planets and moons is totally different than that found in stars. Scientists cannot explain why the stars primarily have lighter elements and planets especially have heavier ones.—pp. 18-19.
14: Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. Haphazard explosions could never produce stellar rotations or orbits.—p. 19.
15: Why did the explosions stop? The theory requires that the star explosions (super-novas) suddenly stopped—conveniently just before light rays could reach us. Yet no adequate explanation is given for the sudden termination. In addition, because of known distant stars, there is not enough time needed for those super-nova explosions to occur—before they had to stop.—p. 19.
16: Too few super-novas and too little matter from them. Super-novas do not throw off enough heavy atoms in each explosion to account for all the stars which exist. Only a few super-novas have occurred in the past thousand years.—pp. 19-20.
17: "Too perfect" an explosion. Many scientists agree that the calculations needed to figure a Big Bang and its aftermath are too close, too exacting to be accepted even by competent scientists.—p. 20.
18: Not a universe but a hole. *Roger S. Peter calculated that, if a Big Bang had occurred, it would have fallen inward on itself (into a black hole), not outward into the universe. What a situation! one imaginary object being swallowed up by another!—p. 20.
19: Non-reversing, non-circling. Outward flowing gas, in frictionless space, does not stop or begin circling. It would just keep moving outward forever.—pp. 20-21.
20: Missing mass. There is not enough mass in the universe to meet the requirements of the various theories of matter and stellar origin.—p. 21.
21: Only hydrogen and helium found in super-nova explosions. The Big Bang theory requires that elements heavier than lithium were set free by super-nova explosions. But analysis of the Crab nebula (a gigantic super-nova explosion in A.D. 1054) reveals there are no elements heavier than light weight helium in the outflowing residual gases from it. Thus it appears that hydrogen explosions cannot bridge the mass 4 gap, no matter what the temperature of the explosion.—p. 21.
22: Older stars do not have additional heavy elements. The Big Bang theory requires that stars, which have not exploded, are producing heavier elements within themselves by explosions of hydrogen. But this has been shown to be false.—pp. 21-22.
23: Intersteller gas has a variety of elements. The theory requires that floating gas in space (which is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang) should only have hydrogen and helium from the initial Bang, but research shows that other elements are also present.—p. 22.
24: Stars and galaxies exist. A theoretical explosion could only produce outward flowing gas, not intricate stars, planets, galaxies, and their complex interrelated orbits. Scientists draw a total blank in explaining how this could happen.—p. 22.
25: Only increasingly rarefied cloud. All the Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly less dense (more rarefied) outward flowing gas.—p. 22.
26: There are stars and galaxies all through space. If the Big Bang had really occurred, the stars and galaxies would only be found along the outer edge of the gas flowage instead of throughout space.—p. 22.
27: Disproved by distant universe. According to the theory, the farthest stars should be the youngest and most densely packed. But, instead, the farthest are just like the others.—pp. 22-23.
28: Unexplained angular momentum. Origin of matter and star theories cannot explain "angular momentum," that is, the rotation of stars. In other words, why do the stars turn?—p. 23.
29: Angular momentum and momentum-mass relationship. Origin theories cannot explain the delicate relationship existing between mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (rapidity with which it rotates).—p. 23.
30: Many stars rotate too fast. According to the theory, stars should not have the high rotational speeds they have; in fact, they should not have any.—p. 23.
31: High-spin stars. The theory could not produce extremely rapid spinning stars. Yet there are stars in the sky which do rotate at such high speeds.—pp. 23-24.
32: Stars that orbit backward. Some stars orbit in the opposite direction than the others. The theory cannot explain this. (The same is true of planets.)—p. 24.
33: Stars that move too fast. There are high-velocity stars which are traveling too fast through space to accommodate the evolutionary theories of origins.—p. 24.
34: Universal rotation. Evidence indicates that not only the galaxies are rotating, but the entire universe is also. This also violates the theory.—p. 24.
35: There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both.—pp. 24-26.
36: A Big Bang explosion would have destroyed all matter. The evidence is clear that, if matter could initially have created itself, that matter would also instantly have destroyed itself.—p. 26.
37: The universe is too lumpy. The outflowing gas from the initial explosion ought to continue smoothly flowing forever. Yet the universe, according to the scientists, is "too lumpy"; it is filled with stars and galaxies.—pp. 26-27.
38: The universe is full of super-clusters. The universe is so lumpy, that, not only is matter clumped in stars, and stars in galaxies, but even the galaxies are clumped together in still larger lumps, called super-clusters.—p. 27.
39: Three lumpy problems. There are several lumpy problems about the universe, which the Big Bang cannot explain. There should be no lumps, but there are. How could the smooth gas form itself into stars? Why is there such an astonishing number of "lumps" throughout the universe?—pp. 27-28.
40: No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.—p. 28.
41: No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called "heavier elements," "post-helium elements," and elements with "more metal." These definitions will help explain that which follows:
According to the theory, the first stars made after the Big Bang were called "Population III stars," and only had hydrogen and helium. They are said to then have exploded in super-novas, which pushed gas around them into "Population II stars," containing more post-helium elements. These are said to then have exploded, making "Population I stars" with still more "metal" elements. (This is how the theory explains how the heavier—post-helium—elements came into existence.)
But astronomers tell us the theory is incorrect: In the sky they only find stars with a variety of elements. There are no "Population III" stars out there.—pp. 28-29.
42: Low and high metal stars. According to the theory, younger stars should be in the center of galaxies, and they should be "low metal stars"; that is, have less heavier elements. Yet all stars are found to have far too much "metal."—p. 29.
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 1
Where does the 30-50 year old data conflict with what the scientists say?
Not exactly "Science" and it fails to prove/disprove anything.
Except the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER: 1
The material which is in the stars, planets, and you—did not come into existence by itself. There never was a Big Bang, and stars cannot evolve from gas. Here are scientific facts to prove it. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Origin of Matter: 1
The Strange Theory: Why was it invented?
Science vs. the Big Bang: 42 scientific reasons why it is an impossible theory
Page numbers without book references refer to our book, ORIGIN OF MATTER, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
THE STRANGE THEORY
Why was such a peculiar theory invented? It runs contrary to all logic and common sense.
The evolutionists' problem was how to explain away the fact that everything in nature exists. They have used theories, which they call cosmology, to explain how matter and stars could have come into existence.
We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic 92 natural elements, but where did matter come from? How did it get all over the universe in the form of planets and stars? How did the complicated and delicately balanced solar systems and galaxies form? What keeps them in balance? And how did the laws which govern matter originate?
A fairy tale, called the Big Bang, was invented to account for the first two questions; the other questions have pretty much been ignored by the evolutionists. Here is their theory, followed by the facts repudiating it:
The evolutionists' solution. A fantastic theory was invented, called the Big Bang, which declared that everything once exploded out of nothing! Clothed in scientific language and mathematical formulas, the theory was called "scientific." But, as you will learn here, it is not.
The theory is a fraud. Both wiser scientists and common sense have refuted it, but these facts are not well-known. You will here find a summary of many of their findings. These facts annihilate the Big Bang theory.
Science fiction. Several men dreamed up the Big Bang idea in the 1920s and 1940s. A research scientist and science-fiction writer, *George Gamow, led out in promoting it to the scientific community. He used cartoons to illustrate it.—pp. 13-14.
Here is what the Big Bang theory teaches:
When nothing gets together. The emptiness is supposed to have gathered together in one place, and gotten so thick that the "nothing" exploded—and blew itself into hydrogen gas.—p. 14.
Laws appear. The laws of nature somehow invented themselves during the explosion.—p. 14.
Gas gets into clumps. Then the outward exploding gas supposedly gathered itself into clumps.—pp. 14-15.
A universe of explosions. The loose, outward flowing gas next decided to push itself into stars. Then all the stars began exploding in super-nova explosions. But, just before light rays from the explosions could reach our planet in our time in history, the explosions are said to have conveniently stopped.—p. 15.
Heavier elements made. Those explosions are supposed to have made all the heavier elements (those above hydrogen and helium).
Rearranging time. In order to adapt to the theory, the supposed age of the universe has been pushed back to a theoretical age of 15 billion years, when the Big Bang is said to have occurred.—p. 15.
SCIENCE VS. THE BIG BANG
Here are 42 reasons why the Big Bang is foolishness. These are scientific facts which disprove the theory of fog coming out of nothing and pressing itself into stars:
1: Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.—p. 15.
2: Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.—p. 15.
3: Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.—pp. 15-16.
4: No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.—p. 16.
5: No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.—p. 16.
6: No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas moves from high density to low density, not the other way around.—p. 16.
7: No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity.—p. 16.
8: No way to produce complex atoms. Aside from hydrogen and helium, which are quite simple, there is no way that loose gas in space can form itself into complex atoms (elements above helium).—p. 16.
9: No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.—pp. 16-17.
10: No way to compress loose hydrogen gas. There is no way that loose hydrogen could push itself into a solid or semi-solid out in space.—p. 17.
11: Not enough time. There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a 20-billion light-year universe and then change itself into billions of stars, before the explosions were theoretically supposed to have stopped.—pp. 17-18.
12: No way to produce enough of the heavier elements. Even if hydrogen explosions could produce heavier elements, there are several other reasons why it could not produce enough of them.—p. 18.
13: Elemental composition of planets and moons is totally different than that found in stars. Scientists cannot explain why the stars primarily have lighter elements and planets especially have heavier ones.—pp. 18-19.
14: Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. Haphazard explosions could never produce stellar rotations or orbits.—p. 19.
15: Why did the explosions stop? The theory requires that the star explosions (super-novas) suddenly stopped—conveniently just before light rays could reach us. Yet no adequate explanation is given for the sudden termination. In addition, because of known distant stars, there is not enough time needed for those super-nova explosions to occur—before they had to stop.—p. 19.
16: Too few super-novas and too little matter from them. Super-novas do not throw off enough heavy atoms in each explosion to account for all the stars which exist. Only a few super-novas have occurred in the past thousand years.—pp. 19-20.
17: "Too perfect" an explosion. Many scientists agree that the calculations needed to figure a Big Bang and its aftermath are too close, too exacting to be accepted even by competent scientists.—p. 20.
18: Not a universe but a hole. *Roger S. Peter calculated that, if a Big Bang had occurred, it would have fallen inward on itself (into a black hole), not outward into the universe. What a situation! one imaginary object being swallowed up by another!—p. 20.
19: Non-reversing, non-circling. Outward flowing gas, in frictionless space, does not stop or begin circling. It would just keep moving outward forever.—pp. 20-21.
20: Missing mass. There is not enough mass in the universe to meet the requirements of the various theories of matter and stellar origin.—p. 21.
21: Only hydrogen and helium found in super-nova explosions. The Big Bang theory requires that elements heavier than lithium were set free by super-nova explosions. But analysis of the Crab nebula (a gigantic super-nova explosion in A.D. 1054) reveals there are no elements heavier than light weight helium in the outflowing residual gases from it. Thus it appears that hydrogen explosions cannot bridge the mass 4 gap, no matter what the temperature of the explosion.—p. 21.
22: Older stars do not have additional heavy elements. The Big Bang theory requires that stars, which have not exploded, are producing heavier elements within themselves by explosions of hydrogen. But this has been shown to be false.—pp. 21-22.
23: Intersteller gas has a variety of elements. The theory requires that floating gas in space (which is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang) should only have hydrogen and helium from the initial Bang, but research shows that other elements are also present.—p. 22.
24: Stars and galaxies exist. A theoretical explosion could only produce outward flowing gas, not intricate stars, planets, galaxies, and their complex interrelated orbits. Scientists draw a total blank in explaining how this could happen.—p. 22.
25: Only increasingly rarefied cloud. All the Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly less dense (more rarefied) outward flowing gas.—p. 22.
26: There are stars and galaxies all through space. If the Big Bang had really occurred, the stars and galaxies would only be found along the outer edge of the gas flowage instead of throughout space.—p. 22.
27: Disproved by distant universe. According to the theory, the farthest stars should be the youngest and most densely packed. But, instead, the farthest are just like the others.—pp. 22-23.
28: Unexplained angular momentum. Origin of matter and star theories cannot explain "angular momentum," that is, the rotation of stars. In other words, why do the stars turn?—p. 23.
29: Angular momentum and momentum-mass relationship. Origin theories cannot explain the delicate relationship existing between mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (rapidity with which it rotates).—p. 23.
30: Many stars rotate too fast. According to the theory, stars should not have the high rotational speeds they have; in fact, they should not have any.—p. 23.
31: High-spin stars. The theory could not produce extremely rapid spinning stars. Yet there are stars in the sky which do rotate at such high speeds.—pp. 23-24.
32: Stars that orbit backward. Some stars orbit in the opposite direction than the others. The theory cannot explain this. (The same is true of planets.)—p. 24.
33: Stars that move too fast. There are high-velocity stars which are traveling too fast through space to accommodate the evolutionary theories of origins.—p. 24.
34: Universal rotation. Evidence indicates that not only the galaxies are rotating, but the entire universe is also. This also violates the theory.—p. 24.
35: There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both.—pp. 24-26.
36: A Big Bang explosion would have destroyed all matter. The evidence is clear that, if matter could initially have created itself, that matter would also instantly have destroyed itself.—p. 26.
37: The universe is too lumpy. The outflowing gas from the initial explosion ought to continue smoothly flowing forever. Yet the universe, according to the scientists, is "too lumpy"; it is filled with stars and galaxies.—pp. 26-27.
38: The universe is full of super-clusters. The universe is so lumpy, that, not only is matter clumped in stars, and stars in galaxies, but even the galaxies are clumped together in still larger lumps, called super-clusters.—p. 27.
39: Three lumpy problems. There are several lumpy problems about the universe, which the Big Bang cannot explain. There should be no lumps, but there are. How could the smooth gas form itself into stars? Why is there such an astonishing number of "lumps" throughout the universe?—pp. 27-28.
40: No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.—p. 28.
41: No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called "heavier elements," "post-helium elements," and elements with "more metal." These definitions will help explain that which follows:
According to the theory, the first stars made after the Big Bang were called "Population III stars," and only had hydrogen and helium. They are said to then have exploded in super-novas, which pushed gas around them into "Population II stars," containing more post-helium elements. These are said to then have exploded, making "Population I stars" with still more "metal" elements. (This is how the theory explains how the heavier—post-helium—elements came into existence.)
But astronomers tell us the theory is incorrect: In the sky they only find stars with a variety of elements. There are no "Population III" stars out there.—pp. 28-29.
42: Low and high metal stars. According to the theory, younger stars should be in the center of galaxies, and they should be "low metal stars"; that is, have less heavier elements. Yet all stars are found to have far too much "metal."—p. 29.
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 1
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1512245 wrote: LarsMac great posts. As for the opposition LOL Some people love to live in the primordial times. Most of the stuff Pahu posts is from wannabe scientists. > If people choose to believe in Unicorns then God for it. believing does not make it happen.
True, which is why evolution is a pipe dream. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 2
In their desperate search for some kind of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, evolutionists try to make background radiation fit the pattern of acceptable evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Origin of Matter: 2
Background Radiation and the Big Bang: 7 reasons why this does not support the Big Bang
Redshift and the Big Bang: 3 reasons why the speed theory is incorrect
Quasars and the Big Bang: 2 reasons why quasars disprove the speed theory of redshift
Summary: Summing it up
Page numbers without book references refer to our book, ORIGIN OF MATTER, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
BACKGROUND RADIATION AND THE BIG BANG
7 reasons why background radiation does not support the Big Bang.
"Background radiation" is a very weak microwave radiation flowing throughout space in all directions. It was first discovered in 1965, and is said to be the final leftover outer-space radiation from the Big Bang. Although called the "dying breath of the Big Bang," it is not an evidence of it (pp. 29, 31) for several reasons:
1 It is omnidirectional. Background radiation flows toward us from all directions; yet it would come from only one direction if it were from the Big Bang.—pp. 31-32.
2 It is too weak. The radiation should be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than it is.—p. 32.
3 It lacks the proper spectrum. The radiation does not have the ideal "black body"; that is, it should have total light absorption capacity.—p. 32.
4 Its spectrum should be far hotter (5 degrees K) than it actually is (only 2.73 degrees K). If the explosion had occurred 15 billion years ago, the background radiation should now be emitting a far higher temperature heat [K = Kelvin, or absolute zero, which is -273.15 degrees centigrade].—p. 32.
5 It is too smooth. Research proves that this radiation is definitely too smooth to agree with the Big Bang theory. It is not clustered enough, and even if it were, it could not produce stars. Gas in outer space (and on earth) always pushes outward, never inward.—pp. 32-33.
6 A failure from the beginning. Predictions made as to the nature of the required radiation (its temperature and its single directional source) were not fulfilled even when background radiation was first discovered in 1965.—p. 32.
7 What is the source of the radiation? Everything in the universe is lumpy, except the gas in outer space: (1) background radiation (which is microwave radiation) and (2) infrared radiation. It appears that the source of both types of radiation is nothing more than the outflowage of radiation from the stars and galaxies on all sides of us.—pp. 33-34.
REDSHIFT AND THE BIG BANG
3 reasons why the speed theory of redshift is incorrect. The speed theory of redshift is said to be the other primary evidence that a Big Bang occurred. But scientific facts clearly disprove this theory also.
According to how far away they are, light from the stars is pushed toward the red end of the color spectrum. The amount of skewing is proportional to the distance to the star which sent the light ray to us. What is the cause of this shift toward the red? Evolutionists rely on a disproved theory (the speed theory) of the redshift in an effort to show there was a Big Bang. Accepting the speed theory makes it appear that the universe is expanding (the expanding universe theory). The evolutionists need an expanding universe, because their theory teaches that everything flowed outward from the Big Bang—which is proven by the fact that the universe is still moving outward. But the speed theory is incorrect, so the universe is not expanding.
Claims of a lumpy background radiation and the foolish "speed theory of the redshift" are the two primary evidences used to prove that there once was a Big Bang. But, like claims for background radiation, the speed theory is false evidence, based on a misinterpretation of the data. There are other theories which explain the redshift much better.—p. 34.
The speed redshift. Also called the "Doppler theory of redshift" this speed theory supports the evolutionary position, and therefore is tenaciously clung to by the evolutionists. According to it, the farther that stars are from our planet, the faster they are moving away from us.—pp. 34-35.
1 The other explanations of the redshift better agree with the facts. Now all agree that the distance of our planet to the star has something to do with the redshift. Aside from the speed theory, there are three other possible explanations. The speed theory has several flaws; but each of the following three possibilities are based on solid, known scientific facts. Singly or together, they provide a much better explanation of the redshift:
[1] Gravitational redshifts. Light rays from the stars must travel vast distances to reach us. It has been proven that the pull of gravity, from the stars the light rays pass, could indeed cause a loss in light-wave energy—thus moving that light toward the red on the spectrum. Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would affect starlight, and this was shown to be true in the 1960s.—p. 35.
Albert Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would be able to affect the transmission of light. This fact could easily explain the redshifts which have been found.—p. 42.
[2] Second-order Doppler shift. It is known that a light source moving at right angles to an observer will be redshifted. Compare this fact with the known fact that all stars are definitely circling galaxies. In addition, many scientists suspect that, just as all planets and stars are kept in position by orbiting, so, for purposes of stability, the entire universe is probably circling a common center!—pp. 35-36.
[3] Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This is called "tired light." The energy-loss shift is probably the primary cause of the redshift.—p. 36.
2 The Arp Discoveries. *Halton C. Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, made several discoveries which threaten to overturn stellar evolutionary theories, especially those concerning the speed theory of the redshift. Here are several of them:
[1] Bridged galaxies disprove the speed redshift theory. Arp has found connected galaxies which have different redshifts.—p. 36.
[2] Quasers disprove the speed redshift theory. Quasers with one redshift have been found alongside galaxies with a different redshift.—p. 37.
[3] Summarizing the Arp discoveries. Arp has found differential redshifts associated with over 260 galaxies, and has published a catalog of hundreds of discordant redshifts. But his work has been ignored. Arp says that energy loss ("tired light") is the cause of the redshifts.—pp. 37-38.
Getting rid of the opposition. Halton Arp was eventually fired for presenting evidence contrary to the Big Bang theory.—pp. 43-44.
3 There are several other evidences that the speed theory is incorrect:
[1] Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the bluest stars are the youngest, and, therefore, the most distant stars should be the bluest. But they are just like the nearest ones.—pp. 38-39.
[2] Redshift distance multiples. An oddity has been discovered that does not agree with the speed theory, but could fit into the energy-loss theory: Stars tend to be most often located at certain distances from us! This totally defies the speed theory. But it may be that starlight loses energy as it travels, and this weakening especially reveals itself at multiples of 72 kps [42 mps].—p. 39.
[3] Galactic shape factor. When elliptical galaxies are in the same cluster with spiral galaxies (and therefore the same distance from us), the spirals will have a higher redshift. The second-order Doppler shift would explain this, but not the speed theory.—p. 39.
[4] Photons slow down. Arp and his associates have shown that photons (unit pieces of starlight) actually do slow down as they travel toward us. Evolutionists refuse to accept this fact, because it would destroy their "expanding universe" theory.—pp. 39-40.
Only one stellar distance measurement is reliable. Keep in mind that only one method of ascertaining stellar distances is accurate. It is the parallax method, which can only be used on a few of the closest stars. So, other than relying on the discredited speed theory, there is no other way to tell whether distant stars are moving away from us or not.—p. 40.
QUASARS AND THE BIG BANG
2 Reasons why quasars disprove the speed theory of redshift. Quasars are a great headache to evolutionists, for they clearly disprove the speed theory. And without the speed theory there can be no expanding universe.
Quasars may hold the key to an understanding of the redshift. According to the speed theory of redshift, quasars must be the most distant objects in the universe. Yet light from them is quite bright, and some can be seen through optical telescopes; therefore, they cannot possibly be very distant.
Here are several facts about quasars which help disprove the speed theory:
1 If the speed theory is correct, quasars are far too bright. The fact that quasars can be seen through optical telescopes, yet are supposed to so far away, violates the inverse-square law. They just could not possibly be so far away, and yet so bright.—p. 40.
2 If the speed theory is true, quasars travel too fast, and some go faster than the speed of light!
[1] 16 percent. In 1962, a quasar was found which, according to the speed theory, is moving away from us at the amazing velocity of 16 percent of the speed of light! This just cannot be true, and thus disproves the speed theory of redshift.—pp. 40-41.
[2] 200-300 percent. Since then, quasars have been found with speed theory redshifts of 200 and 300 percent of the speed of light! If the speed theory were correct, this would be recession speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light!—p. 41.
[3] 350-400 percent. In 1973, a quasar was found which had a speed redshift of 350 percent. In 1986, one had more than 400 percent! If the speed theory were true, these quasars would be fantastic distances of 15 billion light-years away, and traveling outward at impossibly high speeds. Since then more "4 redshifts" have been found.—pp. 41-42.
[4] Eight times faster than the speed of light. Three quasars have been found which, according to the speed theory of redshift, would be moving eight times faster than the speed of light! As of 1990, over thirty faster-than-light quasars have been found.—pp. 42-43.
[5] Light, matter, and gravity. It is a known fact that gravity from the sun actually bends light rays from stars.—p. 43.
Summary
Evolutionists cling to the speed theory of redshift, in an effort to support their idea that outward pushing gas made an expanding universe of outward rushing stars. But new discoveries have produced the ridiculous situation that, if the theory is correct, the most distant stars are said to be traveling faster than the speed of light! Energy loss from gravity pull, distance traveled, and sideways movement of stars provide a far better explanation of the redshift.
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 2
True, which is why evolution is a pipe dream. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 2
In their desperate search for some kind of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, evolutionists try to make background radiation fit the pattern of acceptable evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Origin of Matter: 2
Background Radiation and the Big Bang: 7 reasons why this does not support the Big Bang
Redshift and the Big Bang: 3 reasons why the speed theory is incorrect
Quasars and the Big Bang: 2 reasons why quasars disprove the speed theory of redshift
Summary: Summing it up
Page numbers without book references refer to our book, ORIGIN OF MATTER, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
BACKGROUND RADIATION AND THE BIG BANG
7 reasons why background radiation does not support the Big Bang.
"Background radiation" is a very weak microwave radiation flowing throughout space in all directions. It was first discovered in 1965, and is said to be the final leftover outer-space radiation from the Big Bang. Although called the "dying breath of the Big Bang," it is not an evidence of it (pp. 29, 31) for several reasons:
1 It is omnidirectional. Background radiation flows toward us from all directions; yet it would come from only one direction if it were from the Big Bang.—pp. 31-32.
2 It is too weak. The radiation should be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than it is.—p. 32.
3 It lacks the proper spectrum. The radiation does not have the ideal "black body"; that is, it should have total light absorption capacity.—p. 32.
4 Its spectrum should be far hotter (5 degrees K) than it actually is (only 2.73 degrees K). If the explosion had occurred 15 billion years ago, the background radiation should now be emitting a far higher temperature heat [K = Kelvin, or absolute zero, which is -273.15 degrees centigrade].—p. 32.
5 It is too smooth. Research proves that this radiation is definitely too smooth to agree with the Big Bang theory. It is not clustered enough, and even if it were, it could not produce stars. Gas in outer space (and on earth) always pushes outward, never inward.—pp. 32-33.
6 A failure from the beginning. Predictions made as to the nature of the required radiation (its temperature and its single directional source) were not fulfilled even when background radiation was first discovered in 1965.—p. 32.
7 What is the source of the radiation? Everything in the universe is lumpy, except the gas in outer space: (1) background radiation (which is microwave radiation) and (2) infrared radiation. It appears that the source of both types of radiation is nothing more than the outflowage of radiation from the stars and galaxies on all sides of us.—pp. 33-34.
REDSHIFT AND THE BIG BANG
3 reasons why the speed theory of redshift is incorrect. The speed theory of redshift is said to be the other primary evidence that a Big Bang occurred. But scientific facts clearly disprove this theory also.
According to how far away they are, light from the stars is pushed toward the red end of the color spectrum. The amount of skewing is proportional to the distance to the star which sent the light ray to us. What is the cause of this shift toward the red? Evolutionists rely on a disproved theory (the speed theory) of the redshift in an effort to show there was a Big Bang. Accepting the speed theory makes it appear that the universe is expanding (the expanding universe theory). The evolutionists need an expanding universe, because their theory teaches that everything flowed outward from the Big Bang—which is proven by the fact that the universe is still moving outward. But the speed theory is incorrect, so the universe is not expanding.
Claims of a lumpy background radiation and the foolish "speed theory of the redshift" are the two primary evidences used to prove that there once was a Big Bang. But, like claims for background radiation, the speed theory is false evidence, based on a misinterpretation of the data. There are other theories which explain the redshift much better.—p. 34.
The speed redshift. Also called the "Doppler theory of redshift" this speed theory supports the evolutionary position, and therefore is tenaciously clung to by the evolutionists. According to it, the farther that stars are from our planet, the faster they are moving away from us.—pp. 34-35.
1 The other explanations of the redshift better agree with the facts. Now all agree that the distance of our planet to the star has something to do with the redshift. Aside from the speed theory, there are three other possible explanations. The speed theory has several flaws; but each of the following three possibilities are based on solid, known scientific facts. Singly or together, they provide a much better explanation of the redshift:
[1] Gravitational redshifts. Light rays from the stars must travel vast distances to reach us. It has been proven that the pull of gravity, from the stars the light rays pass, could indeed cause a loss in light-wave energy—thus moving that light toward the red on the spectrum. Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would affect starlight, and this was shown to be true in the 1960s.—p. 35.
Albert Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would be able to affect the transmission of light. This fact could easily explain the redshifts which have been found.—p. 42.
[2] Second-order Doppler shift. It is known that a light source moving at right angles to an observer will be redshifted. Compare this fact with the known fact that all stars are definitely circling galaxies. In addition, many scientists suspect that, just as all planets and stars are kept in position by orbiting, so, for purposes of stability, the entire universe is probably circling a common center!—pp. 35-36.
[3] Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This is called "tired light." The energy-loss shift is probably the primary cause of the redshift.—p. 36.
2 The Arp Discoveries. *Halton C. Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, made several discoveries which threaten to overturn stellar evolutionary theories, especially those concerning the speed theory of the redshift. Here are several of them:
[1] Bridged galaxies disprove the speed redshift theory. Arp has found connected galaxies which have different redshifts.—p. 36.
[2] Quasers disprove the speed redshift theory. Quasers with one redshift have been found alongside galaxies with a different redshift.—p. 37.
[3] Summarizing the Arp discoveries. Arp has found differential redshifts associated with over 260 galaxies, and has published a catalog of hundreds of discordant redshifts. But his work has been ignored. Arp says that energy loss ("tired light") is the cause of the redshifts.—pp. 37-38.
Getting rid of the opposition. Halton Arp was eventually fired for presenting evidence contrary to the Big Bang theory.—pp. 43-44.
3 There are several other evidences that the speed theory is incorrect:
[1] Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the bluest stars are the youngest, and, therefore, the most distant stars should be the bluest. But they are just like the nearest ones.—pp. 38-39.
[2] Redshift distance multiples. An oddity has been discovered that does not agree with the speed theory, but could fit into the energy-loss theory: Stars tend to be most often located at certain distances from us! This totally defies the speed theory. But it may be that starlight loses energy as it travels, and this weakening especially reveals itself at multiples of 72 kps [42 mps].—p. 39.
[3] Galactic shape factor. When elliptical galaxies are in the same cluster with spiral galaxies (and therefore the same distance from us), the spirals will have a higher redshift. The second-order Doppler shift would explain this, but not the speed theory.—p. 39.
[4] Photons slow down. Arp and his associates have shown that photons (unit pieces of starlight) actually do slow down as they travel toward us. Evolutionists refuse to accept this fact, because it would destroy their "expanding universe" theory.—pp. 39-40.
Only one stellar distance measurement is reliable. Keep in mind that only one method of ascertaining stellar distances is accurate. It is the parallax method, which can only be used on a few of the closest stars. So, other than relying on the discredited speed theory, there is no other way to tell whether distant stars are moving away from us or not.—p. 40.
QUASARS AND THE BIG BANG
2 Reasons why quasars disprove the speed theory of redshift. Quasars are a great headache to evolutionists, for they clearly disprove the speed theory. And without the speed theory there can be no expanding universe.
Quasars may hold the key to an understanding of the redshift. According to the speed theory of redshift, quasars must be the most distant objects in the universe. Yet light from them is quite bright, and some can be seen through optical telescopes; therefore, they cannot possibly be very distant.
Here are several facts about quasars which help disprove the speed theory:
1 If the speed theory is correct, quasars are far too bright. The fact that quasars can be seen through optical telescopes, yet are supposed to so far away, violates the inverse-square law. They just could not possibly be so far away, and yet so bright.—p. 40.
2 If the speed theory is true, quasars travel too fast, and some go faster than the speed of light!
[1] 16 percent. In 1962, a quasar was found which, according to the speed theory, is moving away from us at the amazing velocity of 16 percent of the speed of light! This just cannot be true, and thus disproves the speed theory of redshift.—pp. 40-41.
[2] 200-300 percent. Since then, quasars have been found with speed theory redshifts of 200 and 300 percent of the speed of light! If the speed theory were correct, this would be recession speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light!—p. 41.
[3] 350-400 percent. In 1973, a quasar was found which had a speed redshift of 350 percent. In 1986, one had more than 400 percent! If the speed theory were true, these quasars would be fantastic distances of 15 billion light-years away, and traveling outward at impossibly high speeds. Since then more "4 redshifts" have been found.—pp. 41-42.
[4] Eight times faster than the speed of light. Three quasars have been found which, according to the speed theory of redshift, would be moving eight times faster than the speed of light! As of 1990, over thirty faster-than-light quasars have been found.—pp. 42-43.
[5] Light, matter, and gravity. It is a known fact that gravity from the sun actually bends light rays from stars.—p. 43.
Summary
Evolutionists cling to the speed theory of redshift, in an effort to support their idea that outward pushing gas made an expanding universe of outward rushing stars. But new discoveries have produced the ridiculous situation that, if the theory is correct, the most distant stars are said to be traveling faster than the speed of light! Energy loss from gravity pull, distance traveled, and sideways movement of stars provide a far better explanation of the redshift.
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 2
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
All of that is hooey.
No other way to say it.
I will offer one point to consider.
Speed (Velocity) is relative.
I will leave you to puzzle on that thought, for a while.
I do puzzle at what you and your cohorts think the speed of light has to do with Evolution.
No other way to say it.
I will offer one point to consider.
Speed (Velocity) is relative.
I will leave you to puzzle on that thought, for a while.
I do puzzle at what you and your cohorts think the speed of light has to do with Evolution.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512257 wrote: All of that is hooey.
No other way to say it.
I will offer one point to consider.
Speed (Velocity) is relative.
I will leave you to puzzle on that thought, for a while.
I do puzzle at what you and your cohorts think the speed of light has to do with Evolution.
Perhaps this will help. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 3
How did the basic elements in the universe come into existence? Men have invented theories of self-origination which have been disproved by scientific facts. In Part 3, we now turn our attention to evidence contradicting three other theories. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Origin of Matter: 3
Other Origin of Matter Theories: In addition to the Big Bang, there are other theories floating around
Steady State Theory: Its inventor later repudiated it
Oscillating Universe Theory: Just as foolish as the others
Inflationary Universe Theory: Everything in a pin point
Conclusion: The sorry state universe
Page numbers without book references refer to our book, ORIGIN OF MATTER, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
1: THE STEADY STATE THEORY HAS ALL THE FLAWS OF THE BIG BANG
In 1948, working with two other theoreticians, *Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, devised the steady state universe theory. According to this concept, galaxies are continually disappearing while new ones are constantly appearing. Totally new matter is constantly inventing itself out of nothing! At the same time, other matter—entire constellations—are disappearing! Like the Big Bang theory, it was a theoretical idea without any evidence to support it.
Seventeen years later (1965) Hoyle made a public statement, repudiating his theory as unsupported by the facts and totally false. He listed five scientific facts disproving it (radio sources too dense; redshift measurements; amount of background radiation; helium to hydrogen ratio too high; structure of elliptical galaxies).—pp. 44-47.
2: THE OSCILLATING UNIVERSE THEORY IS MORE FOOLISHNESS
The oscillating universe theory was devised by *George Gamow, the research scientist and prolific science-fiction writer who, a few years earlier, had promoted the Big Bang as the only correct concept of origins. According to this idea, when the universe finally runs down, another Big Bang will get it going again. The difference is that the first Bang is matter exploding out of nothing, while subsequent Bangs will result from matter contracting down to a single point, and then exploding outward again. As usual, there is no evidence, just theory.—pp. 47-48.
Here are several points which specifically disprove this theory, which, because it provides a perpetual continuity of "bangs," is now widely believed by many theoreticians:
[1] Running out of hydrogen. Robert Jastrow, a leading scientist, explained that the theory is impossible since hydrogen, once used up, can never be restored.—p. 48.
[2] Stop and reverse. The theory requires that all matter stop traveling outward, change directions, and go backward. But there would be no reason for this to happen.—p. 48.
[3] Leaving its gravitational field. The center of gravity, by that time (assuming an expanding universe), would be on the outer perimeter of the universe, not at its center—so there would be nothing to draw it back to where it theoretically came from.—p. 48.
[4] Not enough matter. There is not enough matter in the universe to cause it to collapse inward.—p. 48.
[5] Getting to the point. Matter would not all rush to a common center and stop right there at a single microscopic dot. Like the other theories, this is science-fiction foolishness.—pp. 48-49.
3: THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE THEORY IS JUST AS UNSCIENTIFIC AS THE OTHERS
This new idea imagines that the universe (including all space and time!) began as a single infinitesimal particle, composed of all the matter in the universe!
But no one has figured out how it all got in there, where it came from, how it exploded, or how it developed into our present universe.—p. 49.
CONCLUSION
Worthless theories. Scientists themselves have written that all these origin of matter theories are meaningless.—p. 49.
Violates natural law. These theories violate known, unchangeable laws of matter and physics. Especially powerful is the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. (That is covered in detail in The Laws of Nature vs. Evolution.) Because of those laws, all theories of matter, stellar origins, and evolution are totally impossible. Disorganized matter can never change itself randomly into highly organized materials, systems, or life forms. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, alone, refutes all possibility of any evolution of matter or living species.—pp. 49-50.
The Sorry State Universe. Thoughtful scientists admit that, if evolutionary theories of the origin of the universe were true, life would be purposeless and a continual misery.—pp. 50-51.
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 3
No other way to say it.
I will offer one point to consider.
Speed (Velocity) is relative.
I will leave you to puzzle on that thought, for a while.
I do puzzle at what you and your cohorts think the speed of light has to do with Evolution.
Perhaps this will help. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 3
How did the basic elements in the universe come into existence? Men have invented theories of self-origination which have been disproved by scientific facts. In Part 3, we now turn our attention to evidence contradicting three other theories. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Origin of Matter: 3
Other Origin of Matter Theories: In addition to the Big Bang, there are other theories floating around
Steady State Theory: Its inventor later repudiated it
Oscillating Universe Theory: Just as foolish as the others
Inflationary Universe Theory: Everything in a pin point
Conclusion: The sorry state universe
Page numbers without book references refer to our book, ORIGIN OF MATTER, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
1: THE STEADY STATE THEORY HAS ALL THE FLAWS OF THE BIG BANG
In 1948, working with two other theoreticians, *Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, devised the steady state universe theory. According to this concept, galaxies are continually disappearing while new ones are constantly appearing. Totally new matter is constantly inventing itself out of nothing! At the same time, other matter—entire constellations—are disappearing! Like the Big Bang theory, it was a theoretical idea without any evidence to support it.
Seventeen years later (1965) Hoyle made a public statement, repudiating his theory as unsupported by the facts and totally false. He listed five scientific facts disproving it (radio sources too dense; redshift measurements; amount of background radiation; helium to hydrogen ratio too high; structure of elliptical galaxies).—pp. 44-47.
2: THE OSCILLATING UNIVERSE THEORY IS MORE FOOLISHNESS
The oscillating universe theory was devised by *George Gamow, the research scientist and prolific science-fiction writer who, a few years earlier, had promoted the Big Bang as the only correct concept of origins. According to this idea, when the universe finally runs down, another Big Bang will get it going again. The difference is that the first Bang is matter exploding out of nothing, while subsequent Bangs will result from matter contracting down to a single point, and then exploding outward again. As usual, there is no evidence, just theory.—pp. 47-48.
Here are several points which specifically disprove this theory, which, because it provides a perpetual continuity of "bangs," is now widely believed by many theoreticians:
[1] Running out of hydrogen. Robert Jastrow, a leading scientist, explained that the theory is impossible since hydrogen, once used up, can never be restored.—p. 48.
[2] Stop and reverse. The theory requires that all matter stop traveling outward, change directions, and go backward. But there would be no reason for this to happen.—p. 48.
[3] Leaving its gravitational field. The center of gravity, by that time (assuming an expanding universe), would be on the outer perimeter of the universe, not at its center—so there would be nothing to draw it back to where it theoretically came from.—p. 48.
[4] Not enough matter. There is not enough matter in the universe to cause it to collapse inward.—p. 48.
[5] Getting to the point. Matter would not all rush to a common center and stop right there at a single microscopic dot. Like the other theories, this is science-fiction foolishness.—pp. 48-49.
3: THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE THEORY IS JUST AS UNSCIENTIFIC AS THE OTHERS
This new idea imagines that the universe (including all space and time!) began as a single infinitesimal particle, composed of all the matter in the universe!
But no one has figured out how it all got in there, where it came from, how it exploded, or how it developed into our present universe.—p. 49.
CONCLUSION
Worthless theories. Scientists themselves have written that all these origin of matter theories are meaningless.—p. 49.
Violates natural law. These theories violate known, unchangeable laws of matter and physics. Especially powerful is the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. (That is covered in detail in The Laws of Nature vs. Evolution.) Because of those laws, all theories of matter, stellar origins, and evolution are totally impossible. Disorganized matter can never change itself randomly into highly organized materials, systems, or life forms. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, alone, refutes all possibility of any evolution of matter or living species.—pp. 49-50.
The Sorry State Universe. Thoughtful scientists admit that, if evolutionary theories of the origin of the universe were true, life would be purposeless and a continual misery.—pp. 50-51.
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 3
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I see. Origin of the Universe has nearly nothing to do with Evolution.
But then, so does almost everything you have ever posted.
But then, so does almost everything you have ever posted.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512261 wrote: I see. Origin of the Universe has nearly nothing to do with Evolution.
But then, so does almost everything you have ever posted.
Are you saying the universe did not evolve? The only alternative is it was created.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 1
Scientists know that evolutionary theories of the origin of matter and stars are not true. They discuss the counter-evidence among themselves, and tell why the theory is unworkable. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Scientists Speak about the Origin of Matter: 1
Introduction: Scientists consider the evolutionary theory to be a foolish concept
The Atomic Gaps: A special reason why the Big Bang could not produce the heavier elements
Wrong Elements: The Big Bang could not have produced the elements in our planets
Supernova: Star explosions do not occur often enough
Population III Stars Missing: The theoretical "first stars" are not there
Calculations Are Too Close: The theory requires calculations within extremely narrow limits
This material is excerpted from the book, ORIGIN OF MATTER. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Origin of Matter.
INTRODUCTION
Many scientists recognize two facts: (1) There is no real evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, and (2) there is very definite evidence against it. But, complicating the matter, there a strong effort is being made by the establishment to muffle opposition. The following statements will provide you with a better understanding of this.
"The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place . .
"Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point.
" `The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, `is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'
"This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. Richard Feynman puts it in this manner:
" `If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms."—*Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion (1984), p. 415.
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed."—*W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.
"Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little."—*G. Burbidge, "Was There Really A Big Bang?" in Nature, 233:36-40.
"This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930's. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well-known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target—a building for example—that anything happens . . But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92 (1981), pp. 521, 523.
THE ATOMIC GAPS
The initial Big Bang explosion is said to have produced hydrogen and helium, which, through later explosions, changed into the heavier elements. But the atomic gaps would forbid this from occurring.
"In the sequence of atomic weight, numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea." —*William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].
"There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.
WRONG ELEMENTS
Why is our earth and the other planets full of the heavier elements, whereas the stars are not? This is a mystery the Big Bang theory cannot explain.
"Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they amount to only about one percent of the total mass . . The contrast [of the sun's light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.
"First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece." —*Fred C. Hoyle, Harper's Magazine, April 1951, p. 64.
SUPERNOVA
When large stars explode, they are termed supernovas. Theorists tell us that supernova explosions of Population III stars produced the stars we now have. Yet it is a scientific fact that supernova explosions rarely occur.
"A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so."—*Reader's Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.
"In a typical nova explosion, the star loses only about a hundred-thousandth part of its matter. The matter it throws off is a shell of glowing gases that expands outward into space . .
"A supernova throws off as much as 10 percent of its matter when it explodes. Supernovae and novae differ so much in the percentage of matter thrown off that scientists believe the two probably develop differently. A supernova may increase in brightness as much as a billion times in few days. Astronomers believe that about 14 supernova explosions have taken place in the Milky Way during the past 2,000 years. The Crab Nebula, a huge cloud of dust and gas in the Milky Way, is the remains of a supernova seen in A.D. 1054. Super-novae are also rare in other galaxies."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1971), p. N-431.
"The explosion named Supernova 1987A in February 1987 was the first reasonably close one since the invention of the telescope. . . [Astronomers] estimate that one goes off somewhere in the Milky Way every 50 to 100 years."—*Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 34.
"Although supernovae may provide enough matter to form some new stars, whether there are enough of them to significantly forestall the [eventual] extinction of the galaxies seems doubtful. In the Milky Way, for instance, stars massive enough to go supernova make up a scant 4 percent of the galaxy's stars and contain only 11 percent of its total stellar mass. Many galaxies may be similarly proportioned. Ellipticals, for example, much like the globular clusters at the Milky Way's outer edges, tend to consist of less massive, slower-burning, and hence, older bodies . . Galaxies are basically dependent on their original supply of gas."—*Op. cit., 71.
POPULATION-III STARS MISSING
The Big Bang theory requires the existence of a theoretical "Population III star," yet no such stars exist. (A "Population III star" is theorized to have hydrogen, helium, and essentially no other elements.)
"Are there any stars older than Population-II? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe are correct. The immediate result of the Big Bang is hydrogen and helium with very little, if any, production of heavier elements. To provide the chemical composition observed in Population-II objects requires a previous generation of stars to perform the necessary nucleosynthesis. Such primordial `Population-III' stars would contain vanishingly small abundances of heavy elements."—*"Where is Population III?" Sky and Telescope, 64:19 (1982) [Nucleosynthesis"=production of heavier elements by nuclear fusion].
"There appears to be no observation evidence for the existence of true Population III stars in our Galaxy which formed in the denser regions of space, such as the Virgo cluster."—*J. G. Hills, "Where Are the Population III Stars?" Astrophysical Journal, 258: L67 (1982).
CALCULATIONS ARE TOO CLOSE
Few non-mathematicians realize how narrowly the calculations have been made to arrive at a theoretical Big Bang. (Yet, as we learn from other statements by scientists, the theory is still a failure. There is too much it does not explain.)
"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less, then the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-2 gm / cm3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R. H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
"The alleged big bang would never have led to an expanding universe at all; rather it would all have collapsed into a black hole."—Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 198 [referring to *St. Peter's calculation].
"It seems, for instance, that altering the rate of expansion at the Big Bang very marginally would have made our universe fall to bits too fast or undergo recollapse too quickly for Life to stand a chance of evolving. Persuading expanding gases to form themselves into galaxies of stars and planets requires an adjustment of gravitational and explosive forces quite as delicate as that between the two halves of a pencil in balance on a razor's edge.
". . Even as matters stand, it is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast—and an early speed increase by one thousandth would quickly have led to a thousandfold increase. Again, very slight reductions in the smoothness with which matter is distributed . . would apparently have multiplied the primeval heat billions of times with disastrous effects."—J. Leslie, Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to explain Life," in N. Rescher, (ed.), Scientific Explanation and Understanding (1983), pp. 53-54.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 1
But then, so does almost everything you have ever posted.
Are you saying the universe did not evolve? The only alternative is it was created.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 1
Scientists know that evolutionary theories of the origin of matter and stars are not true. They discuss the counter-evidence among themselves, and tell why the theory is unworkable. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Scientists Speak about the Origin of Matter: 1
Introduction: Scientists consider the evolutionary theory to be a foolish concept
The Atomic Gaps: A special reason why the Big Bang could not produce the heavier elements
Wrong Elements: The Big Bang could not have produced the elements in our planets
Supernova: Star explosions do not occur often enough
Population III Stars Missing: The theoretical "first stars" are not there
Calculations Are Too Close: The theory requires calculations within extremely narrow limits
This material is excerpted from the book, ORIGIN OF MATTER. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Origin of Matter.
INTRODUCTION
Many scientists recognize two facts: (1) There is no real evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, and (2) there is very definite evidence against it. But, complicating the matter, there a strong effort is being made by the establishment to muffle opposition. The following statements will provide you with a better understanding of this.
"The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place . .
"Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point.
" `The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, `is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'
"This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. Richard Feynman puts it in this manner:
" `If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms."—*Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion (1984), p. 415.
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed."—*W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.
"Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little."—*G. Burbidge, "Was There Really A Big Bang?" in Nature, 233:36-40.
"This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930's. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well-known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target—a building for example—that anything happens . . But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92 (1981), pp. 521, 523.
THE ATOMIC GAPS
The initial Big Bang explosion is said to have produced hydrogen and helium, which, through later explosions, changed into the heavier elements. But the atomic gaps would forbid this from occurring.
"In the sequence of atomic weight, numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea." —*William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].
"There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.
WRONG ELEMENTS
Why is our earth and the other planets full of the heavier elements, whereas the stars are not? This is a mystery the Big Bang theory cannot explain.
"Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they amount to only about one percent of the total mass . . The contrast [of the sun's light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.
"First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece." —*Fred C. Hoyle, Harper's Magazine, April 1951, p. 64.
SUPERNOVA
When large stars explode, they are termed supernovas. Theorists tell us that supernova explosions of Population III stars produced the stars we now have. Yet it is a scientific fact that supernova explosions rarely occur.
"A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so."—*Reader's Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.
"In a typical nova explosion, the star loses only about a hundred-thousandth part of its matter. The matter it throws off is a shell of glowing gases that expands outward into space . .
"A supernova throws off as much as 10 percent of its matter when it explodes. Supernovae and novae differ so much in the percentage of matter thrown off that scientists believe the two probably develop differently. A supernova may increase in brightness as much as a billion times in few days. Astronomers believe that about 14 supernova explosions have taken place in the Milky Way during the past 2,000 years. The Crab Nebula, a huge cloud of dust and gas in the Milky Way, is the remains of a supernova seen in A.D. 1054. Super-novae are also rare in other galaxies."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1971), p. N-431.
"The explosion named Supernova 1987A in February 1987 was the first reasonably close one since the invention of the telescope. . . [Astronomers] estimate that one goes off somewhere in the Milky Way every 50 to 100 years."—*Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 34.
"Although supernovae may provide enough matter to form some new stars, whether there are enough of them to significantly forestall the [eventual] extinction of the galaxies seems doubtful. In the Milky Way, for instance, stars massive enough to go supernova make up a scant 4 percent of the galaxy's stars and contain only 11 percent of its total stellar mass. Many galaxies may be similarly proportioned. Ellipticals, for example, much like the globular clusters at the Milky Way's outer edges, tend to consist of less massive, slower-burning, and hence, older bodies . . Galaxies are basically dependent on their original supply of gas."—*Op. cit., 71.
POPULATION-III STARS MISSING
The Big Bang theory requires the existence of a theoretical "Population III star," yet no such stars exist. (A "Population III star" is theorized to have hydrogen, helium, and essentially no other elements.)
"Are there any stars older than Population-II? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe are correct. The immediate result of the Big Bang is hydrogen and helium with very little, if any, production of heavier elements. To provide the chemical composition observed in Population-II objects requires a previous generation of stars to perform the necessary nucleosynthesis. Such primordial `Population-III' stars would contain vanishingly small abundances of heavy elements."—*"Where is Population III?" Sky and Telescope, 64:19 (1982) [Nucleosynthesis"=production of heavier elements by nuclear fusion].
"There appears to be no observation evidence for the existence of true Population III stars in our Galaxy which formed in the denser regions of space, such as the Virgo cluster."—*J. G. Hills, "Where Are the Population III Stars?" Astrophysical Journal, 258: L67 (1982).
CALCULATIONS ARE TOO CLOSE
Few non-mathematicians realize how narrowly the calculations have been made to arrive at a theoretical Big Bang. (Yet, as we learn from other statements by scientists, the theory is still a failure. There is too much it does not explain.)
"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less, then the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-2 gm / cm3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R. H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
"The alleged big bang would never have led to an expanding universe at all; rather it would all have collapsed into a black hole."—Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 198 [referring to *St. Peter's calculation].
"It seems, for instance, that altering the rate of expansion at the Big Bang very marginally would have made our universe fall to bits too fast or undergo recollapse too quickly for Life to stand a chance of evolving. Persuading expanding gases to form themselves into galaxies of stars and planets requires an adjustment of gravitational and explosive forces quite as delicate as that between the two halves of a pencil in balance on a razor's edge.
". . Even as matters stand, it is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast—and an early speed increase by one thousandth would quickly have led to a thousandfold increase. Again, very slight reductions in the smoothness with which matter is distributed . . would apparently have multiplied the primeval heat billions of times with disastrous effects."—J. Leslie, Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to explain Life," in N. Rescher, (ed.), Scientific Explanation and Understanding (1983), pp. 53-54.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 1
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512266 wrote: Are you saying the universe did not evolve? The only alternative is it was created.
...
The alternative is that it has always been.
Though since to evolve means to change, I would agree that the Universe has evolved.
...
The alternative is that it has always been.
Though since to evolve means to change, I would agree that the Universe has evolved.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Absolutely LarsMaac
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512267 wrote: The alternative is that it has always been.
Though since to evolve means to change, I would agree that the Universe has evolved.
If it always existed, why would it evolve? The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Though since to evolve means to change, I would agree that the Universe has evolved.
If it always existed, why would it evolve? The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512271 wrote: If it always existed, why would it evolve? The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
The whole problem with your discussion is that you have a different definition of "Evolve"
You spend all your time and effort talking to what can't be, because it does not fit your definitions, instead of trying to understand what can be done by an Infinite God in an Infinite Universe.
What a tiny world you live in.
Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
The whole problem with your discussion is that you have a different definition of "Evolve"
You spend all your time and effort talking to what can't be, because it does not fit your definitions, instead of trying to understand what can be done by an Infinite God in an Infinite Universe.
What a tiny world you live in.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512276 wrote: The whole problem with your discussion is that you have a different definition of "Evolve"
You spend all your time and effort talking to what can't be, because it does not fit your definitions, instead of trying to understand what can be done by an Infinite God in an Infinite Universe.
What a tiny world you live in.
So what is the correct definition of evolution? The infinite God ruled out evolution when He said He created everything and every one.
You spend all your time and effort talking to what can't be, because it does not fit your definitions, instead of trying to understand what can be done by an Infinite God in an Infinite Universe.
What a tiny world you live in.
So what is the correct definition of evolution? The infinite God ruled out evolution when He said He created everything and every one.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512278 wrote: So what is the correct definition of evolution?
Adaptation
Pahu;1512278 wrote: The infinite God ruled out evolution when He said He created everything and every one.
That's an assertion on your part, based on incomplete data.
Adaptation
Pahu;1512278 wrote: The infinite God ruled out evolution when He said He created everything and every one.
That's an assertion on your part, based on incomplete data.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu that is incorrect. God did not write the Bible. It was written by folks who felt stimulated to wriute what they interpreted. The Bible is a Very human construct.
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu
So what is the correct definition of evolution?
LarsMac;1512280 wrote: Adaptation
Does adaptation lead to different life forms?
Originally Posted by Pahu
The infinite God ruled out evolution when He said He created everything and every one.
That's an assertion on your part, based on incomplete data.
No, God actually said that in Genesis 1:1.
So what is the correct definition of evolution?
LarsMac;1512280 wrote: Adaptation
Does adaptation lead to different life forms?
Originally Posted by Pahu
The infinite God ruled out evolution when He said He created everything and every one.
That's an assertion on your part, based on incomplete data.
No, God actually said that in Genesis 1:1.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1512281 wrote: Pahu that is incorrect. God did not write the Bible. It was written by folks who felt stimulated to wriute what they interpreted. The Bible is a Very human construct.
If that is the case, how do you explain hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophesies in the Bible?
The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
If that is the case, how do you explain hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophesies in the Bible?
The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512290 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu
So what is the correct definition of evolution?
Does adaptation lead to different life forms?
Originally Posted by Pahu
The infinite God ruled out evolution when He said He created everything and every one.
No, God actually said that in Genesis 1:1.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ...
Funny. I see nothing about Evolution there. Don't see any time-stamp.
Don't even see anything about the Universe. or everything. Or even every one.
Pahu;1512290 wrote:
Does adaptation lead to different life forms?
Different to what?
So what is the correct definition of evolution?
Does adaptation lead to different life forms?
Originally Posted by Pahu
The infinite God ruled out evolution when He said He created everything and every one.
No, God actually said that in Genesis 1:1.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ...
Funny. I see nothing about Evolution there. Don't see any time-stamp.
Don't even see anything about the Universe. or everything. Or even every one.
Pahu;1512290 wrote:
Does adaptation lead to different life forms?
Different to what?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
No, God actually said that in Genesis 1:1.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ...
LarsMac;1512292 wrote: Funny. I see nothing about Evolution there. Don't see any time-stamp.
Don't even see anything about the Universe. or everything. Or even every one.
Look closer. The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution.
Originally Posted by Pahu
Does adaptation lead to different life forms?
Different to what?
Different from the life form that is adapting.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ...
LarsMac;1512292 wrote: Funny. I see nothing about Evolution there. Don't see any time-stamp.
Don't even see anything about the Universe. or everything. Or even every one.
Look closer. The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution.
Originally Posted by Pahu
Does adaptation lead to different life forms?
Different to what?
Different from the life form that is adapting.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1512294 wrote: No, God actually said that in Genesis 1:1.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ...
Look closer. The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution.
That is your interpretation.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ...
Look closer. The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution.
That is your interpretation.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512295 wrote: That is your interpretation.
No, that is what the Bible says.
No, that is what the Bible says.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu I've already explained the so called fulfilled prophesies. The ancient Israeli people after their experience of Jesus Nazareth decided that this man was the Messiah. So they return to the OT and search out passages that seem to support their view even if they have to make changes. They thought that Jesus was the messiah so in their sear they find out that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. However Jesus "of Nazareth" was born in Nazareth, thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth" It did not matter where he was born generally but some of them took it very seriously. No matter where Jesus was really born the scriptures had to fulfill the prophesy so he was listed as born in Bethlehem . Same with "A virgin will conceive. The original Hebrew does not say that. It says a maiden has conceived which is in the past tense and not about some future event. but one that has already happened. The prophesies are not about some distant future event they are about an event of the day they were written. The Word used in Hebrew and wrongly translated "virgin' was incorrectly translated as "virgin" The word used meant young maiden. This has nothing to do with making babies or having sex. They are not prophesy fulfilled but an attempt to make it look so. Being read literally leads to all kinds of absurdities.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512295 wrote: That is your interpretation.
Pahu;1512296 wrote: No, that is what the Bible says.
Let's try this again.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ..."
THAT is what the Bible says. (King James Version, to be precise)
"The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution."
That is what YOU say.
What you said is your interpretation of what the Bible said. Not what the Bible said.
Pahu;1512296 wrote: No, that is what the Bible says.
Let's try this again.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ..."
THAT is what the Bible says. (King James Version, to be precise)
"The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution."
That is what YOU say.
What you said is your interpretation of what the Bible said. Not what the Bible said.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
I do not know about any new additions but the one most used in the past had some 25000 translation errors.
Science Disproves Evolution
maybe someone should print a red error edition.
Science Disproves Evolution
As I understand it, even Genesis has the name of it's MORTAL author. It is "The First Book of Moses". If God had written it, why would it not be called "The First Book of God"? The Bible never even claims to be written by God - Inspired by a belief in a God, yes, but that's quite another thing.
As for the the repetition of the phrase "Discipline of Science" - well the context in which you are using it demonstrates in a single sentence that you don't have the foggiest idea of what the primary Discipline on Science is. Science doesn't Prove nor Disprove anything. It examines the evidence, forms theories based on that evidence & then works to see whether or not the evidence supports the theories. Then, if further evidence comes to light that indicates that the theory in question is wrong, then they amend the theory accordingly. You see, the primary Discipline of Science is NEVER to asume ANYTHING has been Proven or Disproven. The very nature of Science is to leave an open mind & always to question itself based on the evidence. Even many of the initial theories of Darwin have been shown to be flawed, although additional evidence continues to support his overall interpretations.
Your claim about a bird having to have a greater wing span in relationship to its body is a prerequisite for being a bird - then what ould you consider an ostrich to be. If you were to find a fossilised skeleton of an ostrich would you consider it to be a bird or a reptile? Before you go on to use the usual argument that it doesn't have teeth, therefore it has to be a bird - well most lizards don't have teeth either. Take the slow worm. It is technically a lizard, yet it has no legs, so why is it not a snake? There are fish that not only walk on land, but that climb trees also. What is it that predetermines a creature to be a fish rather than a newt? Where do you draw the boundary between a newt & a lizard? What about a bat? A bat has wings & flys - but it's not a bird. There are squirrels who may not have wings, as such, but they fly most ably, gling on the webs of skin beneath their limbs. There are fish that fly for great distances. Crabs & Spiders are technically the same species, yet live in totally different environments in totally different ways. All of these abilities are cross species ones & is not exactly rocket science to see how one moves on to evolve into another over time.
Science also does not claim that anything was always there. It accepts the binary option. 1. That it was always there & 2. That it somehow came into being. Science accepts either as a possibility. The Big Bang Theory actually supports both notions. Under the first, that it always existed, it's a matter of in what form it existed. The primary theory is that it existed as an infinitely dense piece of energy, which was suddenly triggered into a chain reaction by causes unknown (this also happens under laboratory conditions, incidentally, where apparently stable elements suddenly decay & compound into something else - usually quite violently). Elements, themselves are base materials which, left to their own devices remain as such, until triggered to change. A simple spark, for instance will trigger the compounding of 2 parts of Hydrogen to 1 part of Oxygen - Water. You might ask how, in the infinitessimal realm of possibilities would you be able to come up with such a random combination of events with a chemical formula with such precision - yet it happens on every single lightning strike - every single spark where there are traces of the base elements to be found. Furthermore, using the Theory of Relativity, Energy, Matter, the Speed of Light & Time are all inter-related. Therefore, until the change occured to trigger the change that caused the Big Bang, Time didn't exist either. Therefore, it can be viewed as having either always been there or not - in the same way as the value Zero can be looked on as being either Positive or Negative.
Now (WITHOUT USING ANY PASTING) see if you can formulate an argument.
As for the the repetition of the phrase "Discipline of Science" - well the context in which you are using it demonstrates in a single sentence that you don't have the foggiest idea of what the primary Discipline on Science is. Science doesn't Prove nor Disprove anything. It examines the evidence, forms theories based on that evidence & then works to see whether or not the evidence supports the theories. Then, if further evidence comes to light that indicates that the theory in question is wrong, then they amend the theory accordingly. You see, the primary Discipline of Science is NEVER to asume ANYTHING has been Proven or Disproven. The very nature of Science is to leave an open mind & always to question itself based on the evidence. Even many of the initial theories of Darwin have been shown to be flawed, although additional evidence continues to support his overall interpretations.
Your claim about a bird having to have a greater wing span in relationship to its body is a prerequisite for being a bird - then what ould you consider an ostrich to be. If you were to find a fossilised skeleton of an ostrich would you consider it to be a bird or a reptile? Before you go on to use the usual argument that it doesn't have teeth, therefore it has to be a bird - well most lizards don't have teeth either. Take the slow worm. It is technically a lizard, yet it has no legs, so why is it not a snake? There are fish that not only walk on land, but that climb trees also. What is it that predetermines a creature to be a fish rather than a newt? Where do you draw the boundary between a newt & a lizard? What about a bat? A bat has wings & flys - but it's not a bird. There are squirrels who may not have wings, as such, but they fly most ably, gling on the webs of skin beneath their limbs. There are fish that fly for great distances. Crabs & Spiders are technically the same species, yet live in totally different environments in totally different ways. All of these abilities are cross species ones & is not exactly rocket science to see how one moves on to evolve into another over time.
Science also does not claim that anything was always there. It accepts the binary option. 1. That it was always there & 2. That it somehow came into being. Science accepts either as a possibility. The Big Bang Theory actually supports both notions. Under the first, that it always existed, it's a matter of in what form it existed. The primary theory is that it existed as an infinitely dense piece of energy, which was suddenly triggered into a chain reaction by causes unknown (this also happens under laboratory conditions, incidentally, where apparently stable elements suddenly decay & compound into something else - usually quite violently). Elements, themselves are base materials which, left to their own devices remain as such, until triggered to change. A simple spark, for instance will trigger the compounding of 2 parts of Hydrogen to 1 part of Oxygen - Water. You might ask how, in the infinitessimal realm of possibilities would you be able to come up with such a random combination of events with a chemical formula with such precision - yet it happens on every single lightning strike - every single spark where there are traces of the base elements to be found. Furthermore, using the Theory of Relativity, Energy, Matter, the Speed of Light & Time are all inter-related. Therefore, until the change occured to trigger the change that caused the Big Bang, Time didn't exist either. Therefore, it can be viewed as having either always been there or not - in the same way as the value Zero can be looked on as being either Positive or Negative.
Now (WITHOUT USING ANY PASTING) see if you can formulate an argument.
Science Disproves Evolution
Shaking my head at Pahu. LOL
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1512297 wrote: Pahu I've already explained the so called fulfilled prophesies. The ancient Israeli people after their experience of Jesus Nazareth decided that this man was the Messiah. So they return to the OT and search out passages that seem to support their view even if they have to make changes. They thought that Jesus was the messiah so in their sear they find out that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. However Jesus "of Nazareth" was born in Nazareth, thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth"
It did not matter where he was born generally but some of them took it very seriously. No matter where Jesus was really born the scriptures had to fulfill the prophesy so he was listed as born in Bethlehem .
According to the record, He was born in Bethlehem.
Same with "A virgin will conceive. The original Hebrew does not say that. It says a maiden has conceived which is in the past tense and not about some future event. but one that has already happened.
Here is the actual quote: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
The prophesies are not about some distant future event they are about an event of the day they were written.
What about this: Tyre
Ezekiel 26 (592-570 B.C.)
Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ).
For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army. He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a mound against you, and raise up a large shield against you (verses 7,8 ).
"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water (verse 12 ).
"And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken, "declares the Lord GOD (verse 14 ).
"I shall bring terrors on you, and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again,"declares the Lord GOD (verse 21 ).
Predictions
1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Nevuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophecy. The Encylopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 B.C.) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonians suzerainty." 43/xxii 452
When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about one-half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 (prediction #1), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT
The next incident was with Alexander the Great.
"In his war on the Persians," writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Alezander III, after defeating Darius III at the Battle of Issus (333), marched southward toward Egypt, calling upon the Phoenician cities to open their gates, as it was part of his general plan to deny their use to the Persian fleet. The citizens of Tyre refused to do so, and Alexander laid siege to the city, Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a mole 200 ft. (60m.) wide acriss the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. 43/xxii 452 (Prediction #5).
The Tyrians countered here with a full-scale raid on the whole operation, which was very successful; they made use of fireships to start the towers burning and then swarmed over the mole after the Greeks were routed. General destruction of the mole was made to as great an extent as the raiding party was capable. Arrian progressed to the sea struggle. Alexander realized he needed ships. He began pressuring and mustering conquered subjects to make ships available for this operation. Alexander's navy grew from cities and areas as follows: Sidon, Aradus, Byblus (these contributed about 80 sails), 10 from Rhodes, 3 from Soli and Mallos, 10 from Lycia, a big one from Macedon, and 120 from Cyprus. (Prediction #2.)
With this now superior naval force at Alexander's disposal, the conquest of Tyre through completion of the land bridge was simply a question of time. How long would this take? Darius III, Alexander's Persian enemy, was not standing idle at this time, but finally the causeway was completed, the walls were battered down, and mop-up operations began.
"The causeway still remains," writes Philip Myers, "uniting the rock with the mainland. When at last the city was taken after a siege of seven months, eight thousand of the inhabitants were slain and thirty thousand sold into slavery." 99/153
Philip Myers made an interesting observation here; he is a secular historian (not a theologian), and this is found in a history textbook:
Alexander the Great...reduced [Tyre] to runs (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock [prediction #3]-a place where the fisherman that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. 99/55 (Prediction #4.)
John C. Beck keeps the history of the island city of Tyre in the proper perspective:
The history of Tyre does not stop after the conquest of Alexander. Men continue to rebuild her and armies continue to besiege her walls until finally, after sixteen hundred years, she falls never to be rebuilt again. 21/41
The Word used in Hebrew and wrongly translated "virgin' was incorrectly translated as "virgin" The word used meant young maiden.
Who has never known a man.
It did not matter where he was born generally but some of them took it very seriously. No matter where Jesus was really born the scriptures had to fulfill the prophesy so he was listed as born in Bethlehem .
According to the record, He was born in Bethlehem.
Same with "A virgin will conceive. The original Hebrew does not say that. It says a maiden has conceived which is in the past tense and not about some future event. but one that has already happened.
Here is the actual quote: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
The prophesies are not about some distant future event they are about an event of the day they were written.
What about this: Tyre
Ezekiel 26 (592-570 B.C.)
Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ).
For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army. He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a mound against you, and raise up a large shield against you (verses 7,8 ).
"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water (verse 12 ).
"And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken, "declares the Lord GOD (verse 14 ).
"I shall bring terrors on you, and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again,"declares the Lord GOD (verse 21 ).
Predictions
1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).
2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).
3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).
4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).
5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).
6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).
7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).
NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Nevuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophecy. The Encylopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 B.C.) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonians suzerainty." 43/xxii 452
When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about one-half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 (prediction #1), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT
The next incident was with Alexander the Great.
"In his war on the Persians," writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Alezander III, after defeating Darius III at the Battle of Issus (333), marched southward toward Egypt, calling upon the Phoenician cities to open their gates, as it was part of his general plan to deny their use to the Persian fleet. The citizens of Tyre refused to do so, and Alexander laid siege to the city, Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a mole 200 ft. (60m.) wide acriss the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. 43/xxii 452 (Prediction #5).
The Tyrians countered here with a full-scale raid on the whole operation, which was very successful; they made use of fireships to start the towers burning and then swarmed over the mole after the Greeks were routed. General destruction of the mole was made to as great an extent as the raiding party was capable. Arrian progressed to the sea struggle. Alexander realized he needed ships. He began pressuring and mustering conquered subjects to make ships available for this operation. Alexander's navy grew from cities and areas as follows: Sidon, Aradus, Byblus (these contributed about 80 sails), 10 from Rhodes, 3 from Soli and Mallos, 10 from Lycia, a big one from Macedon, and 120 from Cyprus. (Prediction #2.)
With this now superior naval force at Alexander's disposal, the conquest of Tyre through completion of the land bridge was simply a question of time. How long would this take? Darius III, Alexander's Persian enemy, was not standing idle at this time, but finally the causeway was completed, the walls were battered down, and mop-up operations began.
"The causeway still remains," writes Philip Myers, "uniting the rock with the mainland. When at last the city was taken after a siege of seven months, eight thousand of the inhabitants were slain and thirty thousand sold into slavery." 99/153
Philip Myers made an interesting observation here; he is a secular historian (not a theologian), and this is found in a history textbook:
Alexander the Great...reduced [Tyre] to runs (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock [prediction #3]-a place where the fisherman that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. 99/55 (Prediction #4.)
John C. Beck keeps the history of the island city of Tyre in the proper perspective:
The history of Tyre does not stop after the conquest of Alexander. Men continue to rebuild her and armies continue to besiege her walls until finally, after sixteen hundred years, she falls never to be rebuilt again. 21/41
The Word used in Hebrew and wrongly translated "virgin' was incorrectly translated as "virgin" The word used meant young maiden.
Who has never known a man.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1512299 wrote: Let's try this again.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ..."
THAT is what the Bible says. (King James Version, to be precise)
"The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution."
That is what YOU say.
What you said is your interpretation of what the Bible said. Not what the Bible said.
No, that is what the Bible says.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ..."
THAT is what the Bible says. (King James Version, to be precise)
"The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution."
That is what YOU say.
What you said is your interpretation of what the Bible said. Not what the Bible said.
No, that is what the Bible says.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1512300 wrote: I do not know about any new additions but the one most used in the past had some 25000 translation errors.
Such as?
Such as?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1512311 wrote: As I understand it, even Genesis has the name of it's MORTAL author. It is "The First Book of Moses". If God had written it, why would it not be called "The First Book of God"? The Bible never even claims to be written by God - Inspired by a belief in a God, yes, but that's quite another thing.
Since God inspired it, He is the author.
As for the the repetition of the phrase "Discipline of Science" - well the context in which you are using it demonstrates in a single sentence that you don't have the foggiest idea of what the primary Discipline on Science is. Science doesn't Prove nor Disprove anything. It examines the evidence, forms theories based on that evidence & then works to see whether or not the evidence supports the theories. Then, if further evidence comes to light that indicates that the theory in question is wrong, then they amend the theory accordingly. You see, the primary Discipline of Science is NEVER to asume ANYTHING has been Proven or Disproven. The very nature of Science is to leave an open mind & always to question itself based on the evidence. Even many of the initial theories of Darwin have been shown to be flawed, although additional evidence continues to support his overall interpretations.
If the evidence shows the earth is circular. doesn't that disprove the flat earth idea?
Your claim about a bird having to have a greater wing span in relationship to its body is a prerequisite for being a bird - then what ould you consider an ostrich to be. If you were to find a fossilised skeleton of an ostrich would you consider it to be a bird or a reptile? Before you go on to use the usual argument that it doesn't have teeth, therefore it has to be a bird - well most lizards don't have teeth either. Take the slow worm. It is technically a lizard, yet it has no legs, so why is it not a snake? There are fish that not only walk on land, but that climb trees also. What is it that predetermines a creature to be a fish rather than a newt? Where do you draw the boundary between a newt & a lizard? What about a bat? A bat has wings & flys - but it's not a bird. There are squirrels who may not have wings, as such, but they fly most ably, gling on the webs of skin beneath their limbs. There are fish that fly for great distances. Crabs & Spiders are technically the same species, yet live in totally different environments in totally different ways. All of these abilities are cross species ones & is not exactly rocket science to see how one moves on to evolve into another over time.
Where is evidence they evolved?
Science also does not claim that anything was always there. It accepts the binary option. 1. That it was always there & 2. That it somehow came into being. Science accepts either as a possibility. The Big Bang Theory actually supports both notions. Under the first, that it always existed, it's a matter of in what form it existed. The primary theory is that it existed as an infinitely dense piece of energy, which was suddenly triggered into a chain reaction by causes unknown (this also happens under laboratory conditions, incidentally, where apparently stable elements suddenly decay & compound into something else - usually quite violently). Elements, themselves are base materials which, left to their own devices remain as such, until triggered to change. A simple spark, for instance will trigger the compounding of 2 parts of Hydrogen to 1 part of Oxygen - Water. You might ask how, in the infinitessimal realm of possibilities would you be able to come up with such a random combination of events with a chemical formula with such precision - yet it happens on every single lightning strike - every single spark where there are traces of the base elements to be found. Furthermore, using the Theory of Relativity, Energy, Matter, the Speed of Light & Time are all inter-related. Therefore, until the change occured to trigger the change that caused the Big Bang, Time didn't exist either. Therefore, it can be viewed as having either always been there or not - in the same way as the value Zero can be looked on as being either Positive or Negative.
Now (WITHOUT USING ANY PASTING) see if you can formulate an argument.
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Since God inspired it, He is the author.
As for the the repetition of the phrase "Discipline of Science" - well the context in which you are using it demonstrates in a single sentence that you don't have the foggiest idea of what the primary Discipline on Science is. Science doesn't Prove nor Disprove anything. It examines the evidence, forms theories based on that evidence & then works to see whether or not the evidence supports the theories. Then, if further evidence comes to light that indicates that the theory in question is wrong, then they amend the theory accordingly. You see, the primary Discipline of Science is NEVER to asume ANYTHING has been Proven or Disproven. The very nature of Science is to leave an open mind & always to question itself based on the evidence. Even many of the initial theories of Darwin have been shown to be flawed, although additional evidence continues to support his overall interpretations.
If the evidence shows the earth is circular. doesn't that disprove the flat earth idea?
Your claim about a bird having to have a greater wing span in relationship to its body is a prerequisite for being a bird - then what ould you consider an ostrich to be. If you were to find a fossilised skeleton of an ostrich would you consider it to be a bird or a reptile? Before you go on to use the usual argument that it doesn't have teeth, therefore it has to be a bird - well most lizards don't have teeth either. Take the slow worm. It is technically a lizard, yet it has no legs, so why is it not a snake? There are fish that not only walk on land, but that climb trees also. What is it that predetermines a creature to be a fish rather than a newt? Where do you draw the boundary between a newt & a lizard? What about a bat? A bat has wings & flys - but it's not a bird. There are squirrels who may not have wings, as such, but they fly most ably, gling on the webs of skin beneath their limbs. There are fish that fly for great distances. Crabs & Spiders are technically the same species, yet live in totally different environments in totally different ways. All of these abilities are cross species ones & is not exactly rocket science to see how one moves on to evolve into another over time.
Where is evidence they evolved?
Science also does not claim that anything was always there. It accepts the binary option. 1. That it was always there & 2. That it somehow came into being. Science accepts either as a possibility. The Big Bang Theory actually supports both notions. Under the first, that it always existed, it's a matter of in what form it existed. The primary theory is that it existed as an infinitely dense piece of energy, which was suddenly triggered into a chain reaction by causes unknown (this also happens under laboratory conditions, incidentally, where apparently stable elements suddenly decay & compound into something else - usually quite violently). Elements, themselves are base materials which, left to their own devices remain as such, until triggered to change. A simple spark, for instance will trigger the compounding of 2 parts of Hydrogen to 1 part of Oxygen - Water. You might ask how, in the infinitessimal realm of possibilities would you be able to come up with such a random combination of events with a chemical formula with such precision - yet it happens on every single lightning strike - every single spark where there are traces of the base elements to be found. Furthermore, using the Theory of Relativity, Energy, Matter, the Speed of Light & Time are all inter-related. Therefore, until the change occured to trigger the change that caused the Big Bang, Time didn't exist either. Therefore, it can be viewed as having either always been there or not - in the same way as the value Zero can be looked on as being either Positive or Negative.
Now (WITHOUT USING ANY PASTING) see if you can formulate an argument.
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Prophesies are written after the fact. They are not predictions of some time in the future. They were about the times in which they were written, The myths generated by literalism! For instance the Hebrew says "A maiden has conceived". Completed sense. Adam= human kind and not a name. Eve=Mother of all living and not a name. Literalism is based on ignorance and thus dangerous.. Heard a scientist on TV the other day speaking about evolution and its visible effects in the Barbados. Maybe he was seeing things!!!??? LOL
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1512472 wrote: Prophesies are written after the fact. They are not predictions of some time in the future. They were about the times in which they were written, The myths generated by literalism! For instance the Hebrew says "A maiden has conceived". Completed sense. Adam= human kind and not a name. Eve=Mother of all living and not a name. Literalism is based on ignorance and thus dangerous.. Heard a scientist on TV the other day speaking about evolution and its visible effects in the Barbados. Maybe he was seeing things!!!??? LOL
Not so. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
Not so. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.