This is the beginning of a response to the above 'Atheistic Essay' in Full context, click the Tab to read it in full before starting this series of responses!
THE ATHEIST MINDSET REVEALED!
Introduction:
“This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data.”
Most of this essay is ” Strawman Theology” at it’s best, BUT it is also “Riddled with GOOD QUESTIONS that need VERY GOOD ANSWERS.”
You must be very careful when answering this type of QUESTIONING of PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS A “MENTAL TRAP” to get emotional and Reactive to their “VITRIOL VENOM” of hate speech. What she totally misses is the FACT that without FAITH NOTHING HAPPENS one way or the other, that's a FACT.
Unless a person accepts the FAITH OF GOD to start with the Evidence available will never become the PROOF that Atheists require.
PLEASE READ THESE BLOGS AT THIS POINT IF YOU HAVE NOT TO GAIN THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TRUE BIBLICAL FAITH!
http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/2011/01/faith-proof-your-looking-for-and-so.html
http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/2011/01/doorway-to-belief-how-faith-opens-proof.html
http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/2011/01/doorway-to-belief-how-faith-opens-proof_15.htmlUnless a person accepts the FAITH OF GOD to start with the Evidence available will never become the PROOF that Atheists require.
PLEASE READ THESE BLOGS AT THIS POINT IF YOU HAVE NOT TO GAIN THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TRUE BIBLICAL FAITH!
http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/2011/01/faith-proof-your-looking-for-and-so.html
That is exactly why I asked that no one comment on these blogs with “LIKE HATRED OF SPEECH, BECAUSE IF YOU RETURN EVIL FOR EVIL then you prove her point and make God look bad.
” So I will begin where SHE BEGAN…The Idea that REAL SCIENCE does not support a Living and Active God.
WHAT SHE REALLY MEANS IS,THAT EVOLUTION: { The act of unfolding or unrolling. A series of things unrolled or unfolded }DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GOD!
This is true, BUT we must understand what this so-called science is before DISMANTLING IT’S ATHEISTIC PREMISE!
Does everything have a natural cause?
Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause.
However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.
Do skeptics have beliefs?
Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no “beliefs.” However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work.
Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all.
Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.
ARE YOU JUST MISSING THE OBVIOUS ABOUT GOD? “The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.
“Tonto, look up and tell me what you see.”
Tonto replies, “Me see millions of stars.”
“What does that tell you?” asks The Lone Ranger.
Tonto ponders for a minute.
“Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.
Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.
Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.
Theologically, it’s evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.
Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?”
The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks.
“Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent.”
The above joke is a good lesson in missing the obvious. Chances are that you were surprised by the Lone Ranger’s response. However, the first sentence of the joke tells you that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were camping in a tent. It should have been clear at Tonto’s first response that he was missing the obvious.
Likewise, those who have already decided that God does not exist and that all processes must have a naturalistic explanation, do not see the obvious evidence that the universe was designed, rather than happened by chance.
Rational explanations for the creation of the universe come down to two main possibilities:
“Design by an intelligent being”
OR IT
“Happened by random chance”
What are the differences between the two creators?
Both creators must possess certain characteristics in common, such as being eternal and being transcendent to this universe. However, the naturalistic creator must be “stupid” and must have created our exquisitely-designed universe through some sort of random process.
For some reason, the atheist chooses to believe that the universe arose randomly by the action of a stupid creator called Evolution, instead of seeing the obvious – that a well-designed universe would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer.
Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:
Designed and put together by intelligent human beings or….
Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.
Well, its your choice. Have you checked your tent lately?
“Improbable things happen all the time” is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist.
“Improbable things happen all the time” is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist.
SCIENCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE “BIG BANG THEORY” 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 infinites 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].
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 [the heavier elements] 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. [The telescope was invented in 1609; that super-nova occurred in 1604.] . . [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].
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.
MISSING MATTER
There is not enough matter in the universe to fit the Big Bang requirements.
” `Most attempts to fit a cosmological model to observations have in fact implied that the total mean density of matter in the universe is much greater (maybe 100 times) than the mean density of luminous matter.’ McCrae says that whether or not the universe contains this `missing mass’ is `perhaps the most important unsolved problem of all present day astronomy.’ “—*W.H. McCrae, quoted in H.R. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.
“Creationists (for example Slusher) have shown that there is insufficient mass of galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden source of mass, but such rationalizations are failures. Rizzo wrote:
“Another mystery concerns the problem of the invisible missing mass in clusters in galaxies. The author evaluates explanations based on black holes, neutrinos, and inaccurate measurements, and concludes that this remains one of the most intriguing mysteries in astronomy”—*P.V. Rizzo, “Review of Mysteries of the Universe,” in Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150.
EVER OUTFLOWING
The outward-flowing radiation from an initial Big Bang would have kept moving outward forever. The universe should not be filled with anything; it should have all gone outward!
“With no friction in space to stop it, the exploding material from the bang would keep moving onward forever. Eventually most of the universe would again be empty—with the exploded matter off on the edges, still traveling outward. Never packing together, never slowing, it would speed on through frictionless space forever.”—*Richard Johnson, No Way Out (1963), p. 432.
“The farther out into scattered space we look, the further back in time we should be seeing. And as we look farther back in time, we should (according to the current theory) see a more densely packed universe, as it was then much younger. In fact, we find just the opposite. This might be called the Big Bang Paradox, and it shows that the Big Bang Theory cannot be correct.”—A.W. Mehlert, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1983, p. 23 [emphasis his].
STELLAR ROTATION IS TOO RAPID
Many stars rotate too rapidly to have initially collected any nearby gas, much less be formed by compressing gas. By the way, thin hydrogen clouds would not push themselves together, and even if they could— what would start the balls twirling?
“There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of the sun, but it is not condensing. Greenstein of the Mount Wilson Observatory believed that the known stars rotate so fast they could never have been formed by a condensation process.
In fact, many stars have a rotation speed one hundred times that of the sun! With this speed, such stars should not be able to hold on to their surface layers. But if this is happening, how did such stars collapse in the first place? The initial gas clouds should have developed a stable circulation motion without collapsing into stars.”—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 58.
“Greenstein of Mt. Wilson Observatory believes that the `known stars rotate so fast that one must conclude that they could never have been formed by a condensation process.’ “—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 90.
“Spectroscopic study by David Soderblom and John Stouffer of the Harvard-Smithsonian center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., of the Doppler-shifted broadening of spectral lines that rotation causes, confirmed the ultra-fast rotation of 30 percent of the approximately 60 stars they observed in the Pleiades.”—*D.E. Thomsen, “Stellar Evolution Spins a Surprise Stage,” Science News, 125:388 (1984).
SORRY STAR-TREK FANS ANTI-MATTER IS NOT THERE
Whenever matter comes into existence, half of it is our kind of matter and the other half is “antimatter”—which immediately flies to the matter and destroys both. The Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of both, and they would have quickly destroyed one another. Yet the universe has almost no anti-matter.
“Antimatter: Matter made up of antiparticles. Antiparticles are identical in mass to matter particles, but opposite to them in properties such as electrical charge.”—*R.M. Somerville, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), p. 132.
“Antimatter: It is believed that all particles have antimatter counterparts, particles with identical mass and spin as the original but with many other properties (such as electric charge) reversed . . Few such particles exist in nature . . Presently, there is no evidence of antigalaxies.”—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), p. 2.
“We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter.”—*Victor Weisskopf, “The Origin of the Universe,” in America Scientist, 71 (1983), p. 479.
“What ultimately seems decisive is the difficulty of imagining how matter and antimatter in the early universe could have become segregated into distinct regions. It seems more likely they would have simply annihilated each other everywhere.”—*F. Wilczek, “The Cosmic Asymmetry between Matter and Antimatter,” in Scientific American, December 1980, pp. 82-83.
“The principle is clear, however, and no physicist doubts it. Antimatter can exist.
“But does it exist in actuality?
Are there masses of antimatter in the universe?
Are there masses of antimatter in the universe?
. . If they encountered ordinary matter, the massive annihilation reactions that result ought to be most noticeable. It ought to be, perhaps, but it is not. Astronomers have not spied any energy bursts anywhere in the sky that can be identified unequivocally as the result of matter-antimatter annihilation.
Can it be, then, that the universe is almost entirely matter, with little or no antimatter? If so, why? Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force that would create one [such as a Big Bang or steady state theory] would have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each.
“This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there; and observation refuses to back it up.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 343.
“That the moon and Venus are made of ordinary matter is clear from direct observations. That the solar system in general contains no antimatter follows from the lack of solar-wind induced annihilation gamma rays. An `antiplanet’ [a theoretical antimatter planet], for example, would have been the strongest gamma-ray source in the sky.
Similarly, gamma-ray observations show no nearby star is an `antistar.’ Indeed, that the Galaxy can contain no interesting amounts of antimatter is strongly suggested by the absence of antinuclei in the cosmic rays, by the observations of Faraday rotation, and by the observations of galactic gamma rays.”—*Gary Steigman, “Observational Tests of Antimatter Cosmologies,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14:339 (1976).
“Even more fascinating was the realization—confirmed by a series of experiments during the 1950′s and 1960′s—that the electron-positron relationship is standard in the subatomic world. For each type of matter particle there is an antimatter equivalent that is opposite in electrical charge or some other fundamental property . .
“Although the symmetrical creation of matter and antimatter is common in such experiments, the universe outside the physics laboratory is dominated by matter—an asymmetry cosmologists find baffling.
“The implication was obvious: Extremely energetic processes that create matter should just as easily create antimatter. One such process, of course, was the formation of the universe, in which matter and energy came into being. Given the dynamics of the forces at work shortly after the Big Bang, antimatter should be just as abundant in the cosmos as matter. Where then is it?”—Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.
“Clearly, no antimatter exists in any appreciable amount on Earth; if it did, it would readily come into contact with matter and vaporize [both of them] in huge explosions. And since Earth is made of matter, the Solar System must be also . . As for the entire galaxy, if there are such things as antimatter stars, some would already have gone supernova, pouring vast quantities of antiparticles into the interstellar medium and thereby producing almost constant matter-antimatter annihilations and their telltale bursts of energy.”—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.
UNIVERSE IS TOO LUMPY
Scientists tell us that the universe has “lumps” (stars) and “clumps” (galaxies), when, according to the Big Bang theory, it should be totally smooth (only have floating gas).
“The large-scale distribution of matter is strikingly clumpy; we see stars in galaxies, galaxies in groups and clusters, and clusters in superclusters.”—*P. Peebles, “The Origin of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies,” in Science, 224 (1984), pp. 1385-1386.
“Theorists are particularly disturbed by the growing evidence of large-scale inhomogeneity in the universe’s structure, which conflicts with the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation.”—*Horgan, “Big-Bang Bashers,” in Scientific American, September 1987, pp. 22.
“[The lack of homogeneity] is in fact one of the major unsolved problems of cosmology.”—*Waldrop, “Delving the Hole in Space,” in Science 214 (1981), p. 1016.
“It is questioned whether the homogeneous four-dimensional big-bang model will survive in a universe of inhomogeneous three-dimensional structures.”—*H. Alfven, On Hierarchical Cosmology (1982), p. 24.
“The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a blobally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind. `No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing.’ Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise.
“How then did the lumps get there? No one can say—at least not yet and perhaps not ever. The prerequisite for a cosmos with clusters of concentrated matter is inhomogeneity—some irregularity, some departure from uniformity, some wrinkle in the smoothness of space-time—around which matter, forged in the primordial furnace, can accrete.
“For now, some cosmologists all but ignore this most vexatiousness conundrum. They opt, instead, to take the inhomogeneity as given, as if some matrix of organization, some preexistent framework for clumping somehow leaked out of the primeval inferno into the newly evolving universe. With lumpiness in place, the laws of physics seem to work fine in explaining the evolution of the cosmos we’ve come to know.”—*Ben Patrusky, “Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?” Science 81, 2:96, June 1981.
“Over the last 300 years, we have repeatedly discovered ever-larger inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter: stars, clusters, galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters of groups, and clusters of clusters.”—*R. Oldershaw, “The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology,” in Astrophysics and Space Science, 92 (1983), p. 349.
“This peculiarity of the initial state of matter required by the standard [Big Bang] model is called the smoothness problem.”—*Guth and *Steinhardt, “The Inflationary Universe,” in Scientific American, May 1984, p. 119.
BACKGROUND RADIATION
Background radiation and the redshift are said to be two primary “evidences” that a Big Bang occurred.
Background radiation does exist. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth.
“Perhaps the most significant objection to this cosmology [the Big Bang], stems from the presence of the cosmic background radiation.”—*J. Silk, the Big Bang (1979), p. 321.
“The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents . . [But] the claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation.”—*Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, “Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation,” in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698.
“Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.
“Not anymore. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy . . A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself.”—Science News, 1981.
“The Big Bang theory includes a microwave background . . but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case.”—*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 181.
“The latest data [on background radiation] differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data is ignored.”—*Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, 92 (1981), p. 522.
“Recent measurements of the density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could grow from a fluctuation that small—even in 15 billion years.”—*William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 185.
REDSHIFT
The redshift is said to be the other “evidence” that a Big Bang occurred. But this is not true either. There are three possible explanations to the redshift seen in the spectra of more distant stars, Evolutionists declare that the speed (Doppler) redshift theory is the only cause of the spectral redshift. They say this because, if that is true, then the universe is expanding outward—which they say is caused by an earlier Big Bang.
But there are two other causes of redshifts, which have been proven by science, and these better explain the various oddities associated with red shifts:
(1) The tired light redshift: Light gradually slows down as it travels over long distances.
(2) The gravitational redshift: Light loses energy as it passes the gravitational fields of stars.
(1) The tired light redshift: Light gradually slows down as it travels over long distances.
(2) The gravitational redshift: Light loses energy as it passes the gravitational fields of stars.
“The year after Sirius B was found to have its astonishing properties, Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity, which was mainly concerned with new ways of looking at gravity. Einstein’s views of gravity led to the prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift).
[Walter S.] Adams, fascinated by the white dwarfs he had found, carried out careful studies of the spectrum of Sirius B [a dwarf star] and found that there was indeed the redshift predicted by Einstein.
[Walter S.] Adams, fascinated by the white dwarfs he had found, carried out careful studies of the spectrum of Sirius B [a dwarf star] and found that there was indeed the redshift predicted by Einstein.
“This was a point in favor not only of Einstein’s theory but also of the superdensity of Sirius B, for in an ordinary star such as our sun, the redshift effect would be only one thirtieth as great. Nevertheless, in the early 1960′s this very small Einstein shift produced by our sun was detected.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 50.
“[Speed or Doppler redshifts] are caused by recession of one object in relation to another, and are similar to the Doppler effect of a car rapidly driving away and causing the sound heard by an observer to shift from treble to bass . . [In contrast] A gravitational redshift is the shift to longer wavelengths of light passing through a large gravitational field.”—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), pp. 17-18.
“P. LaViolette has compared the tired light cosmology to the sandar [Big Bang-Doppler effect] model of an expanding universe on four different observational tests and has found that on each one the tired-light hypothesis was superior.”—*W. Corliss, “Tired Light Revived,” Science Frontiers, 47:2 (1986).
“Redshift observations are, of course, crucial to our modern view of the evolution of the cosmos. Usually, it is assumed that the observed redshifts are entirely due to the Doppler effects. If this assumption is incorrect, our cosmology [matter and stellar origins theories] must be drastically revised.
“At least five major classes of observations exist which tend to undermine the Doppler-effect assumption:
(1) Laboratory measurements of spectral noninvariance;
(2) Astonomical redshifts that can be correlated with large-scale mass distributions;
(3) General comparisons between Doppler-redshift (expanding universe) cosmologies and cosmologies based on other redshift phenomena, such as `tired light,’ showing the inferiority of the Doppler hypothesis;
(4) Observations of redshift differences between objects thought to be at the same distance; and
(5) Observations of quantized redshift.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 148.
(1) Laboratory measurements of spectral noninvariance;
(2) Astonomical redshifts that can be correlated with large-scale mass distributions;
(3) General comparisons between Doppler-redshift (expanding universe) cosmologies and cosmologies based on other redshift phenomena, such as `tired light,’ showing the inferiority of the Doppler hypothesis;
(4) Observations of redshift differences between objects thought to be at the same distance; and
(5) Observations of quantized redshift.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 148.
“When we observe galaxies with redshifts greater than z=1, the redshift-distance relationship tells us we are seeing stellar systems more than 10 billion light-years away. Since the universe is thought to be 16-18 billion years old, these distant galaxies must be only 6-8 billion years old, for we are looking back into time.
The anomaly here is that these young galaxies do not seem much bluer than nearby old galaxies, 16-18 billion years of age. One would expect the younger galaxies to be much hotter [bluer] and more active.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 185.
The anomaly here is that these young galaxies do not seem much bluer than nearby old galaxies, 16-18 billion years of age. One would expect the younger galaxies to be much hotter [bluer] and more active.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 185.
“A massive quantity of data has been accumulated for galactic clusters, galaxy pairs, stars, and other objects, primarily by W.G. Tifft and his colleagues. Although the catalogs of data on galaxies is not suspect, the analysis of those data in a way that supports redshift quantification has not been well-received. Supporting studies by other astronomers would generate more confidence in the reality of this phenomenon . .
“In clusters of galaxies the spirals tend to have higher redshifts than the E galaxies.”—*Halton Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts,” Astrophysical Journal, 230:469 (1980). [This is because the spirals are exerting more gravity on the outflowing light.]
“The concept of an expanding universe hinges on the astrophysicists’ assumption that no change occurs to the galaxies’ photons on their long, undisturbed trip from the galaxies to us.”—Russell Akridge, “The Expanding Universe Theory Is Internally Inconsistent,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 56.
“A photon’s energy loss is counted twice in the Big Bang expanding universe theory:
[1] In the Big Bang theory, free photons must lose most of their original energy as they travel for vast times.
[2] In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times.
{ O.K. MY TURN TO ASK A QUESTION:Which IS IT, MUST or MUST NOT?
Talk about “Having your cake and eating it too! }
[1] In the Big Bang theory, free photons must lose most of their original energy as they travel for vast times.
[2] In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times.
{ O.K. MY TURN TO ASK A QUESTION:Which IS IT, MUST or MUST NOT?
Talk about “Having your cake and eating it too! }
“A free photon cannot do both at the same time.
“If a free photon loses energy, the Big Bang theory may [or may not] be correct, but the universe is not expanding. However, if the universe is expanding, free photons do not lose energy, because any photon loss is due to the expansion of the universe . . “If either the Big Bang or the expanding universe is true, the other cannot be true. Yet, they are both part of the same evolutionary scheme. Both must be true for either to be true. Therefore, the Big Bang expanding universe theory is false.”—Op. cit., p. 58.
THE HALTON ARP DISCOVERIES
Halton C. Arp, a careful astronomer and astrophysicist, has compiled a remarkable collection of facts which negate acceptance of the speed theory of redshift. But the establishment had him fired for doing so, because his discoveries disprove the expanding universe theory, a primary “evidence” that a Big Bang once occurred.
“The astronomer, Halton Arp, has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts. Occasionally there seems to be a bridge of gas and dust and stars connecting them. If the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe, very different redshifts imply very different distances.”—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pp. 255.
“In case the thesis of this book is correct, we want to know what the factors are that led to this long, implacable rejection of new knowledge, the wasted effort, and the retardation of progress.”—*Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), p. 5.
“There is massive, incontrovertible evidence for important phenomena and processes . . which we cannot currently understand or explain.”—*Op. cit., p. 2.
“It is of profound importance to recall now that for a number of classes of . . objects, there was never any shred of evidence that they obeyed a Hubble relation . . The assumption that . . objects obeyed a redshift-distance relation sprang simply from the feeling that if one kind of object [Sb galaxies] did, all objects must do so. Such a generalization is an example of the oldest of logical fallacies. Nevertheless, it has become an article of faith despite many examples of contradictory evidence.”—*Op. cit., p. 178.
“As with the statistical association of quasars with galaxies, the implication of physically interacting objects with different redshifts is revolutionary. The redshift distance relationship is a pillar of modern astronomy, and this pillar would be shattered if paired objects had different redshifts.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 100.
“It cannot be stressed too strongly, however, that these discordant redshifts are not discovered in just one or two isolated cases that have no relation to each other. But in every case we can test—large clusters, groups, companions to nearby galaxies, companions to middle-distance galaxies, companions liked by luminous filaments, galaxies interacting gravitationally, chains of galaxies—in every conceivable case, we come out with the same answer: This same discordant redshifts for the same general class of younger, fainter galaxies.”—*H. C. Arp, “Evidence for Discordant Redshifts,” in G. Field (ed.), The Redshift Controversy, p. 54.
“This important result has largely been ignored by astonomers because it does not fit in with the current theoretical framework.”—*H. Arp, “Further Examples of Companion Galaxies with Discordant Redshifts and Their Spectral Peculiarities,” in Astrophysical Journal, 263 (1982), p. 54.
“Twenty-two new quasars close to galaxies are reported. Most of them are so close to companion galaxies that the probability of accidental occurrence is less than 0.01.”—*Halton Arp, Quasars near Companion Galaxies, Astrophysical Journal, 250:31 (1981).
“Burbidge and Arp are upset by what they see as a distressingly one-sided approach to the quasar redshift question by the community of astromoners, `Observational evidence exists on both sides,’ Burbidge argues, `Both sides are probably right. What is unfortunate . . is the great prejudice in the field. Arp’s papers and others—suggesting that some quasars are nearby—are held up, interminably rejected. Heckman’s polemic [calling for recantation] would not be published, were it on the other side.’
“If Heckman’s call for recantation is meant in such `good humor,’ Arp asks angrily, `Why has telescope time been cut off for proponents of the [opposing] viewpoint?
{ My turn again, THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF ATHEISTIC RULES FOR THE GAME ONLY…AND ANY “RULE” OF SCIENCE THAT DOES NOT FIT THE EVOLUTIONARY FRAMEWORK, AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF “SCIENTIFIC RULES THAT ARE BROKEN,SO THAT THESE HYPOCRITES CAN MAKE A FAKE POINT. }
{ My turn again, THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF ATHEISTIC RULES FOR THE GAME ONLY…AND ANY “RULE” OF SCIENCE THAT DOES NOT FIT THE EVOLUTIONARY FRAMEWORK, AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF “SCIENTIFIC RULES THAT ARE BROKEN,SO THAT THESE HYPOCRITES CAN MAKE A FAKE POINT. }
” `Much is at stake,’ says Burbidge. `If it is accepted that just one large redshift is not due to the universal expansion [expanding universe], Pandora’s box is open. Much of our currently claimed knowledge of the extragalactic universe would be at risk, as would a number of scientific reputations.’ “—*”Companion Galaxies Match Quasars Redshifts: The Debate Goes On,” Physics Today, 37:17, December 1984. [Heckman's statement, calling for recantation by Arp's group, is given in *T.M. Heckman, et. al., "Low-Redshift Quasars, et. al.," Astronomical Journal, 89:958 (1984).]
“Thus, estimates of the size of the observable universe would shrink considerably—perhaps say Wolf, by a factor of 100 or more.”—I. Amato, “Spectral Variation on a Universal Theme,” Science News 130:166 (1986).
“No matter what they might turn out to be, quasars attracted attention most of all because of their apparent extreme distance from Earth. If they are as far away as redshift measurements seem to indicate, then they are remnants of the universe’s very earliest eras and would allow theorists, in effect, to travel back to those epochs.
“Not all astronomers see quasars as time machines, however. A small though vocal minority has argued that since some supposedly distant quasars seem physically associated with relatively nearby galaxies, the redshift rule may not apply universally to all types of extragalactic objects. Striking, as it did, at one of the central pillars of modern cosmology—the redshift evidence of an exploding universe—this hypothesis touched off what had been characterized as one of the most bitter episodes in the history of astronomy.
“At the center of the debate is Halton Arp, the same astronomer who drew up an atlas of peculiar galaxies. Indeed, it was while investigating these extragalactic aberrations that Arp came upon what he believed was evidence for direct ties between some galaxies and quasars. Several Arp photographs show faint bridges apparently linking nearby galaxies with supposedly more distant quasars. Arp therefore argued that the high redshift of these quasars are caused by factors other than distance . .
“The astronomical community reacted harshly and not entirely rationally. Most astronomers dismissed Arp’s views out of hand, suggesting that the supposed connections were optical illusions produced by chance alignments. Some even went so far as to impugn his integrity by remarking that most of the evidence of physical associations between objects of different redshifts came from photographs produced by Arp himself. [In which instance, he gave exact locations; the dissidents could verify the evidence if they had wished to do so.]
“A few eminent supporters, including the renowned astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, made impassioned pleas for everyone to keep an open mind, but to no avail. In 1983, Arp was to suffer the indignity of being barred from the tools of his trade.
Caltech’s telescope allocation committee decided that his line of research was not worthy of support and that he would receive no more time for this work at the telescopes of the Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories.
Caltech’s telescope allocation committee decided that his line of research was not worthy of support and that he would receive no more time for this work at the telescopes of the Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories.
“Arp refused to take up more conventional studies simply to please the committee; instead, he chose to leave Caltech for a position at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, where he continued to pursue his ideas.
Referring to his abrupt and ignoble ouster, Burbidge later wrote, `No responsible scientist I know, including many astronomers who were strongly opposed to Arp’s thesis, believes justice was served.’ “—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 67-68.
Referring to his abrupt and ignoble ouster, Burbidge later wrote, `No responsible scientist I know, including many astronomers who were strongly opposed to Arp’s thesis, believes justice was served.’ “—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 67-68.
“In a photograph by controversial astronomer Halton Arp, a large spiral galaxy located relatively near the Milky Way [our galaxy] and a quasar widely assumed to be a billion light-years more distant appear to be physically linked by a bridge of matter. Arp . . believes that the high redshifts may be caused by something other than increasing distances resulting from the expansion of the universe.”—Op. cit., p. 69.
THIS IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION, I WILL DO MORE ON “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” IN MY NEXT BLOG!
AS YOU CAN SEE, EVOLUTION DOES NOT PLAY FAIR TO OPPOSITE EVIDENCE IN PLAIN SIGHT;BUT I WOULD ASK, IF EVOLUTION IS SO RIGHT AND PROVABLE THEN WHY DO THEY ACT SO JUVENILE?
AS YOU CAN SEE, EVOLUTION DOES NOT PLAY FAIR TO OPPOSITE EVIDENCE IN PLAIN SIGHT;BUT I WOULD ASK, IF EVOLUTION IS SO RIGHT AND PROVABLE THEN WHY DO THEY ACT SO JUVENILE?
