Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)
- 12-22-2005, 08:18 PM
Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)
Originally Posted by Whiskey Pete
I wanted to continue this debate in its own topic. Well, its not really a debate, moreso a clarification.
Evolution HAS been proven. The Theory of Evolution has not yet been proven in regards to the mechanism responsible for our earthly beginnings.
The Theory of Evolution states that we basically evolved from simple proteins into prokaryotic bacteria, into eukaryotic bacteria, etc, into all the different kingdom's of life that exist today. The exact mechanisms are not know, so despite the extraordinary amount of evidence that implies we evolved from what was originally a random conglomeration of atoms and molecules, in 300degree celcius stew we now call the ocean, into advanced organisms, we can't prove it because we can't prove the mechanism. No amount of DNA evidence, etc will do the trick. (you know that white foamy stuff at the beach? Those are proteins...that's where live is believed to have originated).
Now, evolution, on the other hand is PROVEN. This is, basically, an organism's ability to adapt or to survive in an evironment.
Here is a nice little page that explains the difference:
Originally Posted by Laurence Moran
Last edited by kwyckemynd00; 12-22-2005 at 09:00 PM.
- 12-23-2005, 08:03 AM
Evolution in terms of natural selection and individual adaptation, yes that's basically proven because it's observable. I'd preface this by saying I think some form of evolution takes place in terms of going from simple to complex organisms, etc. One thing does piss me off about this debate though and it's this: The Theory of Evolution as you put it, Kwycke, is the new religion of the masses. They believe in it the same way people believe in God, without having the slightest shred of understanding as to how it supposedly works, what evidence there is for it, etc.
Intelligent design, while I don't believe in God, does raise some interesting questions at least. How does such a specific organ like the eye evolve? Now, the fact that we don't know the answer doesn't necessitate the existence of God. However, not too long ago I was talking about this very subject with a friend of mine. In his mind the Theory of Evolution is proven, they know how it works, etc. I asked him to explain how a giraffe's neck evolved, he said it used to be more like a horse but had to keep stretching its neck to get food, and over time this lead to it having a long neck. This kind of nonsense is what the general population believes.
Here's a nice article on the subject which I like:
How Intelligent Is Intelligent Design?
by Gene Callahan
Anyone who follows the US news in even the most casual fashion is aware that great amounts of energy are being expended on the battle over whether Intelligent Design (ID) should be included in school curriculums as a serious competitor, for the task of explaining the diversity and complexity of life on Earth, to the dominant theory, which is typically called Neo-Darwinism. The fact that so many people with little or no expertise in biology and who normally would be unaware of such theoretical disputes have taken a side in the debate indicates that something beyond the mere technical nature of the theories is at stake.
I will declare up front that I don’t regard Intelligent Design as a likely candidate to supplant Neo-Darwinism as the accepted model for understanding the origin of species, and not merely due to the hostility it generates in the scientific establishment, but even more because of its own weaknesses. For one thing, it seems to me that ID, at least in the versions of it with which I am somewhat familiar, posits an odd sort of process for God to be undertaking. ID, unlike fundamentalist creationism, generally doesn’t deny that life on earth is very old, or that Darwinian evolution has occurred. Instead, it suggests that certain biological phenomena exhibit too complex a dependence on a number of underlying mechanisms to have evolved through random mutation and natural selection. The picture that arises is of God sporadically entering into biological evolution to tinker with it – a picture I find unattractive.
Furthermore, ID contains a theological difficulty I have never seen noted before in this context, but one which, for example, Cardinal Bellarmine would have been well acquainted with when he was criticizing Galileo: ID proponents appear to propose constraints on how God could have achieved the biological diversity we see around us. If God is omnipotent, then there is no reason that he couldn’t have created the universe with the proper initial conditions so that eyes, for instance, would emerge from a process of Darwinian evolution. (One may question whether the process would be truly random in that scenario, but the important point is that it could appear entirely random to anyone lacking a God’s-eye view of time and physical circumstances. Dembski apparently tries to maintain that, even if God had arranged things at the first instant of creation such that, from that point forward, a sequence of events indistinguishable from a standard Darwinian account led inevitably to life as we find it today, ID is still valid. He declares that in that scenario, ID applies anyway, since, "the Specified Complexity was 'front-loaded' in at the big bang." But then, it seems to me, Darwinism would offer a satisfactory account of everything that has happened since the Big Bang – no paltry accomplishment for any scientific theory, I would think – and ID would be relevant only in explaining evolution’s kickoff.) To contend, as I understand ID theorists to do, that the eye is "too complex" to have evolved by random mutation and natural selection seems to deny God the power to produce eyes in that way.
Despite the fact I suspect that ID is an intrinsically flawed approach, I still endorse the efforts to have it presented in schools as an alternative to the standard theory. If ID is included in a biology course, the enrollees should certainly be informed that Neo-Darwinism is currently the orthodox view, embraced by the vast majority of working biologists. But it is precisely such firmly entrenched orthodoxies that most cry out for challenges. Even if the dominant theory succeeds in repelling all *****s, they still can serve to rescue the mainstream from the danger of self-satisfied complacency. Furthermore, many of yesterday’s orthodoxies are now regarded as quaint curiosities, because some lonely dissenters refused to accept the prevailing wisdom. To me, teaching students that all scientific ideas should be open to criticism and that broad acceptance of a theory is no guarantee of its truth seems even more valuable than conveying the details of any particular theory.
Opponents of teaching ID in schools may acknowledge my above contentions in principle, yet still protest that ID is not a genuinely scientific alternative to Neo-Darwinism. They often castigate it as "agenda-driven science," an irredeemably biased venture unworthy of serious consideration. I think this complaint rests on unsustainable picture of "real science" as an entirely objective enterprise, pristinely untouched by scientists’ personal beliefs about the nature of reality. An honest appraisal of how major scientific advances were arrived at in the past will reveal the mythical character of that image. Copernicus developed heliocentrism because he wanted to place the great light of the sun at the center of the universe, where his Neoplatonism demanded it ought to be. Kepler was dissatisfied with the Ptolemaic and Copernican models of the solar system, involving planetary orbits with their centers offset from the central body (the Earth or the Sun, respectively), because he believed that the angelic intelligences guiding the planets through the heavens could not steer them around an empty point in space. Galileo was notorious, and in the end suffered, for his propensity towards propaganda and his tendency to defend his positions with impressive rhetoric instead of solid evidence. Newton sought an alternative to the popular Cartesian physics of his time because it seemed to leave no place for an active God after His initial act of creation. Einstein famously rejected the "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics because he thought that "God does not play dice" with the physical universe. Most great scientists and most great scientific advances have been inspired by a passionately held vision of the fundamental character of the world we inhabit. That is true of the defenders of Neo-Darwinism no less than it is of the proponents of Intelligent Design, despite the gulf separating their respective visions: the Neo-Darwinists take such umbrage at their critics because of their pre-scientific commitment to a mechanistic worldview.
Another charge lodged against ID is that the theory is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. I think there are several problems with this objection. First of all, it is not clear that any number of theories routinely accepted as scientific can meet this criterion. For example, Michael Polanyi notes that the well-developed and quite mainstream theory of crystallography cannot be falsified by any empirical findings. Nor, strictly speaking, can any probabilistic theory – an advocate of one can always maintain that any run of observations seeming to contradict it are merely a chance occurrence. Indeed, whether or not Neo-Darwinism is falsifiable is open to dispute.
What’s more, the allegation that ID is not open to falsification does not even strike me as well grounded, although I admit that I haven’t examined the matter at great length. As I understand the theory, ID claims to demonstrate something like, "Mechanism (organ, etc.) X is too complex to have evolved by random mutation and natural selection, and therefore must be the product of deliberate design." If that is accurate, then ID may be falsified by showing that X could arise from strictly Neo-Darwinian processes.
In response to arguments like those above, the critics of teaching intelligent design in high school biology sometimes respond to the effect, "OK, these fine points in the history and philosophy of science are all well and good to bring up with graduate students, but they just don’t belong in secondary education. There, the students need to be learning straight, mainstream evolutionary theory." Well, that’s obviously because, right out of high school, all of their jobs will demand the application of Darwinism to fast food sales, computer repair, truck driving, and so on. You say what? They most probably won’t need a mastery of evolutionary theory for their practical pursuits? Then why wouldn’t it be more important that high school students learn that scientific theories are always tentative, that they must face competing theories, and that scientists are fallible, than that they learn the details of Neo-Darwinian evolution? The only reason I can see is an ideological one: students are being taught that scientists are quasi-magical people who bring enlightenment to the masses, the job of whom it is just to shut up and listen.
- 12-23-2005, 08:06 AM
12-23-2005, 08:37 AM
Evolution makes more sense to me than believing words from a book that stories are only a few thousand years old.
[/QUOTE]I asked him to explain how a giraffe's neck evolved, he said it used to be more like a horse but had to keep stretching its neck to get food, and over time this lead to it having a long neck. This kind of nonsense is what the general population believes.
There is always the possibility that we may find this, but I'm sure more time is being put in to find out how humans evolved...
There is PROOF that humans have evolved, there is none that some sort of Higher Power exists.
As far as religion goes, believe in what you want, just don't try to push it on me. Bye Bye rep points...
12-23-2005, 09:23 AM
I have no religion to be honest. As far as proof that humans evolve, in the general sense of some adaptations over time we can see that fairly easily. As far as species origination, missing links, original causes for life, etc, proof of any particular theory is still pretty hard to come by. So far as I know most 'theories' of evolution still lack the ability to be falsified. Personally I don't minus rep points for people who make postings that I disagree with unless it's involving something blatantly incorrect about AAS and their use. But, feel free to negative rep me if you want.Originally Posted by g4ud1n
12-23-2005, 09:26 AM
Personally I think body builders should favor evolution. Pound for pound monkeys are a lot stronger than humans. That we might have a similar potential is kind of inspiring. I guess the question would be if you could be as strong as monkey on a pound for pound basis would you want to be? If the red ass and body hair problem were optional, I'd take it.Originally Posted by Beelzebub
12-23-2005, 09:46 AM
It's actually all the way around, for me anyway. Haven't seen the proof of what you said but I have been proved about God.Originally Posted by g4ud1n
Neg rep for you. J/kOriginally Posted by g4ud1n
12-23-2005, 10:11 AM
Personally, I just don't see any possibility of protein forming without DNA or DNA forming without protein. They are both essential to one another and can not form independantly. Protein gets it's instruction from DNA, DNA is made of proteins. You could perhaps draw a similar analogy from computers. What good is PC hardware without software and what good is software without the hardware?
I believe in micro evolution, such as adaptation within a species but I think it is a stretch to assume macro evolution or the origins of life from innate matter or the transition from one species to another. I find that this theory is the result of circular reasoning. There is no God so we must have come from natural sources thus we must have evolved so lets try to find some mechanism by wich this could have happened and in the meantime untill we find some proof of this we will teach it as dogma to uphold our naturalist worldview.
Believe it or not, does not matter to me what other people choose to believe but please don't tell me there is proof without being able to demonstrate the mechanisms of macro evolution. I used to believe in it untill I saw the overwhelming scientific and statistical evidence that seems to suggest that is impossible. Take amino acids, they must form in an oxygen depleted environment wich would not sustain life. There are many, many unanswered problems with the theory that a little research will provide examples of. I am on a dialup connection at work so I will have problems following or responding to this thread but please, lets just have a discussion with open minds and not let our emotions take over and start flaming and neg repping. Just enjoy the intelligent debate made possible by our wonderfully "designed" brains (just messin there, come on lighten up).
12-23-2005, 10:41 AM
Very good post, you said everything I wanted to say, I just didn't have time.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
12-23-2005, 10:44 AM
Originally Posted by bpmartyr
Here is a link to the Miller/Urey Experiment. To summarize, they basically created amino acids from only methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O).
12-23-2005, 11:17 AM
The Miller/Urey Experiment is chock full of problems and should no longer be considered as a plausible explanation for the creation of amino acids.
As some have already alluded to, I believe the biggest misunderstanding in regards to evolution is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is proven, observable fact, while microevolution continues to founder in fantasy.
Life cannot spontaneously originate from non-life, ever. Pasteur proved this forever ago. Lamarckism, a crux of microevolutionary theory, has also been debunked. New information cannot come from nowhere, ever. Microevolution involves a continual increase in information which has been shown to be completely impossible.
Why does a human being only have around 66 chromosomes while a fern has well over 400?
The probabilties of randomly assembling a primitive cell on earth are so beyond fathomably remote that in any other branch of science, in any other theory, the entire idea would be completely thrown out.
12-23-2005, 11:36 AM
Crownedone- I understand the Miller/Urey exp. is full of problems and these are actually pointed out in that link. I was just showing that amino acids don't actually require an enviroment full of O2.
Also, I think you have macro and micro mixed up. Macroevolution refers to the process by which new species emerge from existing species. Micro refers to the genetic changes that occur within a species. One way to look at micro is the change in allele frequency in a population over multiple generations. Micro is not necessarily adding new genes it is simply changing or a mutation in a specific gene.
For instance, in most animals the mutation rate is appx. 10^-4 to 10^-6 mutations per gene per generation. So if the human genome carries about 30000 genes one can conclude that appx .025-2.5 new mutations will arise somewhere in the genes of each human gamete per generation.
This is summed from my genetics book in case you were wondering.
12-23-2005, 11:48 AM
There's also problems with mutation being involed. I don't think one observable beneficial or even sustainable mutation has ever been found, either in the here and now or in the fossil record. But, say one did pop up. Now that mutation needs to breed, and even if it is a dominant trait it's going to be hard to pass on indefinitely unless some portion of the rest of the population also has it.
Another problem is that as species become more successful they don't seem to advance, they do the opposite. Great success against your competitors and natural evironement means a higher number of misfits surviving and breeding. Look at humans. Our astounding success lets misfits breed that woudln't be so successful otherwise, such as people with physical genetic defects, bad eyesite, weak immune systems, etc. It would seem evolutionary success has the seeds of its own destruction built in to a certain degree.
Last I'd read evolutionary theories hadn't accounted for catastrophism either. The fact that mass extinctions seem to be fairly regular and that a proliferation of species seems to follow shortly after needs to be accounted for.
Personally I think some form of evolution happens. It also think it's got to be such a complex process involving so many factors and variables on so many levels that we'll probably never have a good grasp of how it actually works.
12-23-2005, 11:50 AM
12-23-2005, 12:03 PM
I hope that if this thread continues we can all act like adults and exchange information in opposition with kindness and not get it closed like every other thread of its kind before it.
12-23-2005, 12:10 PM
I stated they need an oxygen depleted environment. Not that they need oxygen.Originally Posted by dsl
12-23-2005, 12:39 PM
damnit, guess I should have read closer. So, uhhhhh, I gotta a bigger scholng than you so ha...lol. I need to go to the gym before it closes so I will have to continue this later.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
12-23-2005, 01:36 PM
12-23-2005, 01:58 PM
Intelligent Design poses no thought-provoking questions at all; its nothing but half-ignored facts and other-half-twisted facts to its own end.
Anyone who has seriously studied evolution and how MUCH evidence there is to support it on so many levels can see how stupid ID really is. It takes some faith-based ideal as the goal and then makes its way towards it, meandering over a path by ignoring obvious facts, discounting proven methods (like claiming Carbon-14 dating to be bunk), and then using small studies from some backwoods guy that totally contradicts EVERY OTHER STUDY in the same area and uses them to make a path towards what they feel "must" be true.
And then they try and pass it off as science; when its nothing but Creationism with new words mixed in to make it sound more scientific. If you'd read the 139 page paper from the recent ruling in Pennsylvania, you'd see the Judge take it apart piece by piece; and get to see the testimony of a totally delusional biologist that basically fries himself on the witness stand and then claims that they made big strides in "the struggle".
Having a science where it requires you to believe in a supernatural being or beings isnt science. Just like astrology.
Evolution like most people understand it; is halfway wrong. Its not about evolving from one form to another as progress... it doesnt work that way. Even Darwin originally stated that there is no actual way for animals to become "better" or "more evolved". Its only reaction and adaptation to changes in the environment be it the earth itself, other predators, loss of prey, climate shifts, etc.
One really funny fact, is that in the Theory of Evolution; there is NOTHING that proves or disproves the existence of some creator... it does NOT deal with how life ORIGINATED. Only how it changed over long periods of time. It might be hard to understand how an eyeball evolved; but remember how LONG it had to do it. Eyes didnt always see color; and they even only used to see movement. Web-spinning spiders are almost blind, but wandering spiders have great vision... its just a simple adaptation to their environment.
I've been doing A LOT of studying into evolutionary theory, ancient civilizations, prehistory, modern hunter-gatherer tribes, etc. If you're educated, and you've read into it more than the modern high-school level biology textbook talks about it; you'll know there are MANY misconceptions about things that people have totally wrong.
As for giraffes... they evolved over millions of years. Most people don't have comprehension of how long that is. Put it this way. ALL of civilized human history, EVERYTHING we have every accomplished in such a long period of time... was only 8,000 years. To put it better: The last species of old-world horses died out about 2 MILLION years ago....
Right now in that group of animals; there are two different families (i think i have the name right)... there are modern horse relatives... like the modern horse and its many subspecies, donkeys, and zebras. The only other group are giraffes, deer, antelopes, etc.
If you simplify something down to claim a Giraffe "stretched" its neck over the years so it got longer; then you're just either being facescious (spelling?) or you're a complete idiot.
Giraffes' ancestors were shorter hooved herbivores. Over time either the trees started averaging taller to keep their fruit and leaves from animals getting to them, or all the good stuff on the lower part of the tree was constantly eaten by growing populations of other herbivores (its proven if you increase the food supply, you increase the population in a direct proportion). The proto-giraffes' population probably started to suffer a bit because of the loss of supply... animals are ALWAYS specializing, its proven... new species of mosquitos in the london sewers in the past 100 years that are resistant to some designer-poisons, rats, etc. So those that had longer necks and generally taller bodies tended to have an advantage (aka extra food supply)... over time, the more specialized you got at getting stuff from the tops of the trees, the better the chance you had to live.... now accelerate this process over say, 3 million years. How MANY generations of animals do you think that is?
ID says the earth is only 10,000 years old and uses a bunch of bull**** "Facts" to back up their claim... but every single fact has been torn apart by the scientific comunity.
I can start bringing up quotes from the ruling in Pennsylvania if anyone wants me too.... but ID is bunk. Its nothing but Creationism wrapped up with more science words and never saying "God". Its ultra-right-wing religious idiots trying to force everyone to their religion (or to any religion at least). Sure its nice to have an alternative theory to Evolution... but one that has scientific merit; has scientific method in its derivation and evidence... not some scheme where you take some evidence and throw it out but then "alter" others by taking unrecognized studies and turning them into whatever they want.
I dont mean any of my post to come off as offensive. But it IS quite hard for me to take someone serious when they are backing ID. Its basically of 2 types of people. The delusional religious zealots (like Biologist Behe and whoever the idiot was that wrote "Of Pandas and People"; or those who havent really researched it yet and are only looking at the nice "package" that ID offers. I cant help the 1st type... but the 2nd type I ask that you read several books that counter the arguments of creationism and ID. There are websites out there that do this too.
12-23-2005, 02:04 PM
This comment makes very little sense. There are countless examples of 'sustained mutations'. Consider RSV (Rous sarcoma Virus), or any of the many other retroviruses that have incorporated a human gene into their genome. Breed any colony of bacteria and induce a stress, resistance (via random alterations in their genome) will occur. This is a great example of a sustained and beneficial mutatition. Only the bacteria with this mutation can survive. It's difficult to notice mutations in humans because there is very little selective pressure on us as a species. I think protein homology across so many different species also provides clear evidence of a common origin. The statistical odds of such high levels of homology amongst so many species border on impossible.Originally Posted by CDB
In terms of a dominant trait, no other member of the species needs to possess the mutation. In order for the mutation to be sustained, it must confer a selective advantage for the organism. If the selective pressure is great enough (as in the bacteria example) it will be both sustained and beneficial.
You really need to define what it means to 'advance'. Normally, we use the term 'more complex' and you are correct in assuming that mutations do not necessitate increased complexity. However, success of an organism does not rely solely on complexity. In terms of numbers, viruses and bacteria are the most plentiful organisms ('succesful', if you will), and yet they are the least complex.Originally Posted by CDB
If you are using the term misfits to define being different from the population then this statement is correct. What you need to understand is that evolution isnt a linear process. Far from it, in fact, as the vast majority of mutations in a genome will occur in non-coding sections, or result in defective offspring. But the mutations that confer a specific advantage to that individual will result in greater propensity for propogation which would result in passing on the advantage to offspring...
There is a constant arms race between predator and prey. Obviously, catastrophism affects different organisms differently. When a population of predators are wiped out, the prey can proliferate at an astonishing rate. Their numbers are no longer maintained by the predators and the food chain becomes unbalanced.Originally Posted by CDB
I dont believe that there is a large difference between micro and macro evolution. It's easy to understand micro evolution in terms of bacteria in culture, and it is also easy to see as the reproductive rate is exponential. To extrapolate this to larger more 'complex' species (not 'advanced') we need to slow down the reproductive rate and drastically increase the time frame. I believe that evolution is such a hard concept to accept because of the time frame involved. It is nearly impossible to understand hundreds of millions of years.
12-23-2005, 02:21 PM
They've observed prokaryotic backterial cells "merging" and basically forming a new bacteria, basically similar to what would be the intermediate between a prokaryote and a eukaryote.So, yes, they have observed mutations and evolutionary adaptations. So, one of the most important mutations in history has been observed in a Chinese Professor laboratory about 20 years ago, so this isn't new info.Originally Posted by CDB
In short, if I remember correctly, it was an amoeba that enveloped a smaller bacteria (dunno what it was) and the engulfed cell became a mitochondrial-like powerhouse supplying energy, while the amoeba was basically a big protective cell. This is where the modern mitochondrial eukaryotic cell comes from. This is WHY the mitochondiral DNA is different from the cells DNA.
(Below is not to CDB But is a general statement)
I honestly can't believe some of your responses. I'm not challenging anyone's faith, I'm just saying, quit ignoring the facts about evolution and our primitive ancestry. Some of you REFUSE to even entertain the thought of a anything that is not included in the Bible.
I'm not opposed to the idea of intelligent design, nor am I opposed to the belief in a supreme being...I personally belive there is some sort of supernatural driving force (God). There is a whole lot of trash talk about intelligent design going on, but as long as they conform to the current FACTS regarding evolution and our ancestry, etc, intelligent design is a valid option because we don't have any answer as to our beginnings. That being said, some of the people behind ID have taken a good thing and almost ruined it with too much ignorance and religious "influence".
I'm probably done here. I "thought" I could clear up some misconceptions, but all that happened was people making up their own uneducated theories as to how cells should work and evolve, etc.
12-23-2005, 02:24 PM
DNA is made of nucleic acids (not proteins) and holds instruction sets for building proteins.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
Just wanted to clear that up.
12-23-2005, 02:37 PM
Nice link. Gould is one of my favorite authors (may he RIP). Reading Full House by him right now. It goes into applying sabermetrics to evolution; very interesting.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. "
THIS is EXACTLY what I was trying to express in my previous post
12-23-2005, 03:21 PM
All this talk about bacteria adapting to a stress is essentially moot because in the end they will always be bacteria.
There is no reason to become anything beyond bacteria. What stress could a bacteria face and respond to that would lead to it eventually becoming something like a fish?
And where exactly is all this irrefutable evidence for evolution? All I can find are a lot of meandering theories.
Did anybody even go to the link I put up about the probability of a primitive cell assembling itself? You guys just side-step stuff like that and continue to talk about the mountains of factual proof that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is an established scientific fact.
Why don't we start with some problems with the Big Bang and move on from there?
(1) NOT SQUEEZABLE— Nothingness never packs together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile. There is no physical law to explain such a peculiar event.
*Hannes Alfven, professor of plasma physics at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, heatedly opposes the idea that the universe could ever have attained such a fantastic density.
The Big Bang is supposed to be an explosion of concentrated nothingness. But nothingness never pushes itself into anything, much less a concentrated pile. A total vacuum is the complete opposite of total density. This theory is not science, but a playing with words.
(2) NOT STOPPABLE—There would be no mechanism that could push all the emptiness in the universe to a common center,—and then, having arrived there, to suddenly stop it at a single point. It would just rush on past.
If emptiness could press itself together, there would be nothing to hold itself tightly meshed for even a short time. Gravity operates only on matter and radiation, not on a lack of it. There is no such thing as a vacuum being pulled by gravity into something dense. It is, as said above, just a playing on words.
(3) NOTHING TO EXPLODE IT—Not only was there no matter in this theoretical "beginning,"—there obviously could be no energy at that time either. It takes energy to have an explosion. There was no match to start the fire. Without energy there can be no heat, no explosion. Yet the Big Bang is supposed to have produced a massive heat blast which congealed vacuity into hydrogen.
This theory is supposed teach the origin of matter. But it would also have to include the origin of energy, for the two are variant forms of one another. An explosion could not occur without energy, and without matter there would be nothing to explode outward. Without pre-existing matter and energy, there could be no match, no fire, no fuse, and no dynamite. Nothing exploding with no energy to explode, it is impossible.
Some Big Bang supporters think that perhaps there may originally have been an immense concentration of energy. But they have absolutely no idea where it came from or how it got there. To say that energy already existed in the beginning is to self-destruct any "origin of matter" theory based on that idea. This is because matter and energy are alternate forms of the same thing. Any "origin of matter" theory must also explain the origin of energy.
Other evolutionists have come up with the theory that energy was initially created by an explosion of no-energy! But that is just more of this evolutionary "word wizardry" that may sound convincing, but in reality is utter foolishness.
Seriously now, "nothing exploding with no energy to explode it" is clearly impossible twice over.
It is of interest that every evolutionary theory that tries to explain the origin of either matter or energy—always tacitly assumes that one or both already existed.
(4) NO WAY TOEXPAND IT—Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity (which it cannot), what would then cause the big pile of emptiness to push outward? The same "gravity" that brought it together, would later prevent it from expanding.
A total vacuum can not be expanded any more than it can be contracted. If a pile of emptiness could be pressed together, what would later untie it, much less explode it outward? (I know all this sounds like foolishness, but we are discussing a foolish notion, such as one would expect to find only in fairy tales for small children.)
The origin of matter theory teaches that, by the time of expansion, the vacuum had been transformed into hydrogen and helium. So, beginning at this point, we will assume that that which is exploding outward is not emptiness, but gas.
(5) NO WAY TOSLOW IT—If hydrogen gas blew outward after an explosion in outer space, there would be no way to slow it.This is a key point. An explosion of matter would cause an outward spray of gas and energy. It would continue to move outward in space forever. Space is frictionless. There would be no way to slow the gas, nothing to stop it.
(6) NO WAY TOCLUMP IT—On earth, gas never clumps into a solid. Out in space, where everything is a near-vacuum, it would be totally impossible—impossible in the extreme——for this to occur. Throughout the voids of space between the stars is to be found various gases, the primary one of which is hydrogen. These gaseous compounds never move away from an area of vacuum into an area of congestion or density. Never, never, never. It just does not happen. The hydrogen gas observed by astronomers through telescopes is gradually expanding. None of it is packing together. There are no exceptions! Slow expansion of gaseous matter in outer space is normal, and in accordance with physical laws.
"Scattered through the vast darkness between stars, the molecules of interstellar space range. . These molecules of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and scores of other compounds generally make up a tenuous soup—a trillion trillion times less dense than stars or planets." —*Allan Fallow, et. al., Between the Stars (1990), p. 65.
Frankly, after examining item after item of scientific facts in this chapter, we will find the Big Bang theory to be only a connected series of tiny tot stories. Repeatedly, we will find that the theories run counter to the facts.
(7) NO WAY TO PRODUCE STARS—That outrushing gas from the Big Bang that was not able to stop or clump, we are told then did so. And more, it began forming itself into the intricate patterns of planets, stars, and galaxies! This is an important point; in fact, it is a key one. The laws of physics provide no mechanism by which outwardly exploding gas could clump together into stars This is a crucial point.
"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. Burbridge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" in Nature,233:36-40.
Gas floating in the vacuum of outer space cannot form itself into stars. Once a star is formed, it can hold itself together by gravity, but there is no way that gas in outer space can get the operation started.(All gas clouds in outer space are more rarified than that found in the most rarified vacuum-bottle pressures that man is able to produce on earth.) Yes, once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. It will remain just loose, floating gas.
(8) NO WAY TO PRODUCE COMPLEX ATOMS—*George Gamow and his associates decided that, after the initial explosion, outflowing emptiness first changed itself into hydrogen and helium atoms, with their nuclei, protons, electrons, and all the rest. These two elements are very complex in their structure, even though they have less atomic units in them than do the other elements. (There are 81 stable chemical elements; 90 natural elements; 105 total elements discovered to date; of carbon compounds alone there are thousands.) How can such nuclear complexity emerge from nothing? It cannot be done, yet *Gamow theorized that all the hydrogen and helium in the universe magically brought itself into existence.
(It should be mentioned that only in the intense heat of a nuclear explosion can hydrogen even change into helium.)
(9) NO WAY TO GO PASTTHE HELIUM MASS 4 GAP—In a thermonuclear explosion, hydrogen may be changed into helium, but it is much, much more difficult (some consider it impossible) for hydrogen to go past the "helium mass 4 gap" and produce the heavier atoms in an explosion.
The Big Bang theory requires an atom-building process after the initial explosion. This initial atom-building process is based on successive neutron-capture reactions to achieve elements of increasing atomic weights in a stepwise manner, starting with, according to one Big Bang theory, a 100 percent neutron content of the primordial ylem. According to the theory, at the end of the first 30 minutes slightly more than half of the ylem has been converted into hydrogen, with slightly less than half into helium. But it is quite another thing to go past helium! Physicists know well that, among nuclides that can actually be formed, a gap exists at mass 5 and 8. The first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium.
It is true that some scientists believe that a hydrogen bomb explosion can produce elements beyond helium, but there is also evidence (which we will discuss later in this chapter) which would indicate that this is not so.
"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].
For additional information, see the quotation supplement, "3 - The Mysterious Elements," at the end of this chapter.
(10) NO WAY TO COMPRESS LOOSE GAS—Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together. Both hydrogen and helium are very much like fog. Have you ever seen fog push together into balls? It never does. Stars do indeed have helium and hydrogen—and once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well. But getting it together In the first place is the problem.
"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.
All the gas in those marvelous gas clouds of the cosmologists begins like all the gas clouds now in outer space: with a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! If men cannot push cold hydrogen into a solid on earth where we have lots of barometric pressure from the atmosphere to help us—how do they expect hydrogen to have done it by itself in the near-total vacuum of outer space?
Gas will not naturally compress itself under conditions existing on earth or in outer space. Have you ever seen fog push itself together into solids? This is an important point which we will return to. All hydrogen gas in outer space now is slowly expanding outward; it is never contracting inward.
(11) NOT ENOUGH TIME—Astronomers tell us that the diameter of the universe is over 20 billion light years.Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 20 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. Evolutionary theorists only allow about 21/2 billion years from the time of the Big Bang till hydrogen and helium had spread throughout the universe, and another 21/2 billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the fairly recent discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss in greater detail later in this chapter).
Scientists now say that the distance from our world to the farthest-known quasars (those with a red-shift of 400 percent) are at least 15 billion light-years! That would make them at least 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory.
We have no evidence that hydrogen or helium anywhere in the universe travels at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). But even if it could, it would take 15 or 20 billion years for hydrogen and helium to reach the farthest part of the universe—or over a trillion years if it went at the speed that hydrogen gas is currently traveling outward from super-novas.
After reaching the edge of the universe (if there is an edge), it would then take a long, long time for the thinly spread-out hydrogen and helium fog to devise a way to lock together (if the gas had the brains to figure out such a pressing problem).
So there is just not enough time in the evolutionary timetable from the Big Bang till the universe was filled with stars. The Big Bang theorists are divided on when it occurred; some say 20 billion years ago, others 10 billion. We will here assume the longest timeframe: 20 billion years. But quasars have now been found which, by Big Bang-accommodating theories, are "15 billion years old." This does not provide enough time for the gas to spread outward throughout the universe, form itself into stars, then wait while billions of supernovas repeatedly explode (to produce heavy elements [if they could do so]), reform into stars, explode more times, and finally form into our present orbiting stars, galaxies, clusters, and superclusters.
Before concluding this section, we will try to tack down the Big Bang dates. Generally, the Big Bang itself is supposed to haveexploded 10 to 20 billion years ago, with the first formation of stars occurring 250 million years after the explosion. At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into "first generation " stars, most of them exploded, and then, 250 million years later, reformed into "second generation" stars. Our sun is thought to be at least a second generation star, having previously exploded at least once, and perhaps twice. Apparently, no one ever dates the Big Bang earlier than 20 billion years ago. Here are several representative statements:
"Big Bang: According to a widely accepted theory, the primeval moment, 15 to 20 billion years ago, when the universe began expanding from a single point." —*Kirk D. Borne, et. al, Galaxies (1988), p. 134.
"Until 250 million years after the Big Bang, Gamow maintained, matter took the form of a thin gas, evenly spread throughout space . . Each cloud began to condense and break up into myriad stars ." —op. cit., pp. 113-114.
"What is the universe like? If it had a beginning, how did it begin? How did it evolve to make galaxies, stars, planets, and ultimately human beings? These are the sorts of questions astronomers are trying to answer as they aim their large telescopes toward the depths of outer space.
"In this century, they've developed a picture of the universe as having an explosive beginning, which they call the Big Bang. According to Big Bang cosmology our universe began around 10 billion years ago. Then came a time when the galaxies were made as matter collected into islands in space in which stars were born." —*Star Date (radio broadcast), October 2, 1990.
"When did the big bang take place?. . A figure that is generally accepted as at least approximately correct is 15 billion years. If an eon is 1 billion years, then the big bang took place 15 eons ago, although it might just possibly have taken place as recently as 10 eons ago or as long as 20 eons ago. "—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 44.
(12) NO WAY TO PRODUCE ENOUGH OF THE HEAVIER ELEMENTS—We now know of 81 stable elements, 90 natural elements, and 105 total elements. It requires a sizable number of books to explain all that we have learned about their unusual properties and intricate orbits. Where did all those elements originate? It is theorized that explosions of large stars (super-novas) produced them. But, although it is thought that a small amount of heavier elements are made by high-thermal explosions within stars, yet (1) there is great uncertainty whether, aside from hydrogen and helium, such explosions could produce many light elements, much less those of the post-helium ("heavy") elements, and (2) there is no evidence that such explosions could produce enough of the heavier elements to provide for all the post-helium elements in the universe, much less in our own planets. The Big Bang theory simply does not account for the abundance and variety of heavier elements.
Normally, because of the helium mass 4 gap, explosions of hydrogen can only produce helium. At first, Big Bang theorists maintained that that initial explosion produced all 90 elements. But later, recognizing the helium mass 4 gap, they admitted that even if the Big Bang explosion could make "something out of nothing," that primeval explosion (the Big Bang itself) —and even explosions of small stars (novas) —could only produce hydrogen and helium. For this reason, they looked to explosions of very large stars—super-nova explosions—to change hydrogen into the heavier elements.
But then came more obstacles. Although it is thought that the intense heat inside a large star is such that a few heavier elements might actually be produced, this would not solve the theoretical problem for two reasons: (1) Only a super-nova explosion is thought powerful enough to produce the heavy elements, and there have been relatively few super-nova explosions. More on this later in this chapter. That is problem enough, but (2) even those scientists that believe that super-nova explosions could produce heavy elements admit that only a small amount of such elements could possibly be produced by an exploding super-nova, and that would not be sufficient to produce enough heavy elements. The quantity of post-helium elements in the universe is too great for them to have come from super-nova explosions.
(13) ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF PLANETS AND MOONS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT FOUND IN STARS—Here on earth we find large quantities of the heavier elements. We have 90 natural elements; where did they come from? Each nuclear test explosion is thought to produce an extremely small amount of certain elements, but not enough quantity or variety is produced.
The lighter elements tend to be found in larger quantities in the stars (although heavier elements have been identified in them as well as in interstellar gas). Science cannot explain why our earth is composed of such heavy elements. If stars produced our world, why does our planet have such different elements than the stars have? A leading astronomer, Fred Hoyle explains that the problem is a major one that has evolutionists baffled:
"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 1 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.
(14) RANDOM EXPLOSIONS DO NOT PRODUCE INTRICATE ORBITS—Extremely complicated factors are involved just in maintaining the proper rotations and revolutions of galaxies, stars, and planets. How could haphazard explosions result In the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, and galactic systems!
And, within each galaxy, millions to billions of stars are involved in those interrelated orbits!
"Galaxy: a system of stars, gas, and dust that contains from millions to hundreds of billions of. stars." —*Kirk Borne, et. al., Galaxies (1988), p. 135.
The complex obedience to natural law that we find everywhere in the universe is astounding. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would all fly apart!
The careful balancing of gravity vs. centrifugal force that we now see throughout the universe in the orbits of the spheres is a continual marvel. All the stars and galaxies should separate or crash. But instead, they just keep going around in circles. —And we are to believe that all this started because something—pardon me—nothing—exploded?
Random explosions never produce orbits! Shall I say that again? Random explosions never produce orbits. No type of explosion can produce the intricate, carefully balanced orbits of the stars, planets, and moons. The universe is filled with orbiting bodies. All available evidence indicates that every outer-space object in the universe orbits something else! Evolutionary theory cannot explain those orbiting bodies.
(15) WHY DID THE EXPLOSIONS STOP— When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months, and is called a "supernova." The theory of the Big Bang includes the idea that billions of stars have exploded and most of them several times. But there is nothing in the theorized mechanism to start the process,—and there is nothing to stop it either.
According to the theory, it is the explosions of the very large stars that produced all the heavier elements. Such super-nova explosions are said to have occurred by the millions and billions for long ages of time. Why then did the explosions stop? They are said to have ceased exploding 5 billion years ago—and why? Frankly, for the convenience of the Big Bang theorists! As mentioned earlier, when the theory was first devised in the 1940s, the farthest star was said to be 5 billion light years distant, so it was decided that the super-novas stopped exploding 5 billion years ago! Is that scientific? Millions of stars were theoretically blowing their tops, but just before we could look out into space and see starlight from stars 5 billions light years away—the fireworks suddenly stopped.
If the theory be true, the explosions should be going on now. We should see over a thousand explosions nightly. (The theorists tell us our own sun has exploded and reformed three times!) Large numbers of gigantic super-nova explosions should be occurring right now on an immense scale, for there are multitudes of stars out there and super-nova explosions are obvious when they occur. Some become as bright as our own planets; some become brighter.
It is a cardinal requirement of evolutionary theory (uniformitarianism, it is called) that whatever happened earlier in time is happening today. That is a strict point of evolutionary theory, everything that happened earlier is happening today, and conversely, everything happening today is the way things happened earlier. According to evolutionary theory, the same quantity of explosions should be occurring now as before. Yet with the naked eye we never see such happenings, and through their telescopes few astronomers have ever seen a supernova that has even recently exploded.
"A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so." —*Reader's Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.
At the present time, the farthest known objects are said to be—not 5 billion—but 15 billion light years distant, which would eliminate the time needed for all or most supernova explosions to produce elements. Research astronomers tell us that about one supernova explosion is seen every century, and only 14 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now.
(16) TOO FEW SUPERNOVAS AND TOO LITTLE MATTER FROM THEM— As mentioned earlier, in addition to occurring very infrequently, supernovas do not throw off enough matter, to make additional stars, and the smaller stellar explosions (novas) cast off an extremely small amount of matter. Yet, according to the Big Bang theory, the only source for all the heavy elements in the universe had to be super-nova explosions.
A small star explosion, or nova, only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent, yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars.
"In a typical novas 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 a 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.
Early in the morning of February 24, 1987, such an explosion was observed simultaneously by three astronomers, working in Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. It occurred in the Veil Nebula within the Large Magellanic Cloud. This was the first bright, close supernova seen since A.D. 1604, when the German astronomer Johannes Kepler spied one in the constellation Ophiuchus! So few super-novas have occurred, that we know the dates of many of them. The Chinese observed one in A.D. 185, and another in 1006 which was 200 times as bright as Venus and one tenth as bright as the moon! In 1054 a phenomenally bright one appeared in the constellation Taurus. It produced what we today call the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. Both the Chinese and Japanese recorded its position accurately. In 1572, another extremely bright one occurred in Cassiopeia. Tycho Brahe, in Europe, wrote a book about it. The next bright one was seen in 1604, and Johannes Kepler wrote a book about that one. The next bright one occurred in 1918 in Aquila, and was nearly as bright as Sirius—the brightest star next to our sun. Some have been found in other galaxies, but they are equally rare events. (A bright one occurred in the Andromeda galaxy in 1918.)
So supernovas—Gamow's fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently to produce the heavier elements of the universe.
(17) "TOO PERFECT" AN EXPLOSION—On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into our present world cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting, "too perfect," according to knowledgeable scientists. Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
The theorists have tried to figure out some possible way in which a primeval explosion could have accomplished everything they need it to accomplish. Most aspects of their theory are impossible, and some require parameters which would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits:
"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 109 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less and the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-s of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-t 2 gm/crn3, 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.
(18) NOT A UNIVERSE BUT A HOLE—*Roger L. St. Peter in 1974, developed a complicated mathematical equation which revealed that the theorized Big Bangcould not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium (which supposedly later formed itself into stars and galaxies). In reality, according to St. Peter, such an explosion would have fallen back upon itself and formed a theoretical black hole. This would mean that one imaginary object would have been swallowed by another one.
"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].
(19) NON-REVERSING, NON-CIRCLING— The outward-flowing gas from the initial explosion would just keep moving outward forever through frictionless, gravitationless space. But, in order to produce the stars and galaxies which today exist, that gas would have had to pause, change directions, circle, clump, and do a number of other exotic things. It would have had to change direction of travel several times.
A vacuum is not subject to gravity, but this vacuum was different: it supposedly was drawn inward to a common center, then changed into outward, moving gas, which then veered away from straight-line motion—into circles! Then the gas made itself into all the stars of the heavens! Imagine firing a shotgun with billions and billions of pellets out into frictionless space, Out it goes, then it stops, while some of the pellets travel backwards into the area they came from, and congregate into groups and then, of all things, begin circling one another! And these circling groups then begin revolving around still other distant groups, and continue doing so forever. Would shotgun pellets fired in outer space do that? Why then should we expect that floating gas would do it?
From the above illustration, it is obvious that an explosion in outer space would produce neither stars, galaxies, planets, nor complicated orbiting systems. Following an initial explosion, all the material having shot outward, would just keep moving outward forever. In space, there would be no friction to stop it.
(20) MISSING MASS— Mathematical astronomers tell us there is not enough mass in the universe to meet the demands of the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory.
The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts, but also to the "expanding universe" theorists. Observations of stars, clusters, and galaxies indicates there is only about one-third of the mass required to close the universe (that is, eventually halt its theoretical expansion). (More on the "expanding universe" theory, another corollary needed by the Big Bang enthusiasts, in the next chapter.)
" '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. McCrea, 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 for galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden sources 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.]
"The obvious solution is that there really is no hidden mass, galaxies cannot hold together for billions of years, and galaxies have not been in existence long enough to fly apart." —Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1984, p. 125.
*Hoyle says that, without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.
"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology." —*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.
Since Big Bang theorists depend on supernovas to produce the majority of the elements, it should be rather easy to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and see all those elements in the outflowing gas from the former star.(21) ONLY HYDROGEN AND HELIUM FOUND IN SUPER-NOVA EXPLOSIONS—According to the Big Bang theory, chemical elements heavier than lithium that are present outside stars (in planets, comets, meteorites, dust, or gas) and/at the surface of stars—should have been set free by supernova explosions.
*K. Davidson did just that. A 1982 report told of his analysis of the Crab nebula. (The Crab nebula is the result of a super-nova explosion in the year A.D. 1054.) Its spectrum revealed that the outflowing gas from this earlier supernova showed no additional heavier elements of any kind, except, of course, helium. This is important and would indicate that a supernova explosion does not produce heavier elements. Such a fact points us toward the possibility that the hydrogen mass 4 gap is never bridged, no matter what the temperature of the explosion! This would mean that hydrogen never changes into heavier elements.
In his report, *Davidson describes his search for such an enrichment of heavy elements in the best observable SRN ("supernova remnant") in the skies: the Crab nebula. He carefully analyzed the visible and ultraviolet bands of its spectrum, and found that the explosion had produced no extra oxygen at all, likewise no carbon, and no other elements except helium! (See *Nigel Henbest, "Crab Nebula's Halo Betrays Hidden Past, " in New Scientist, Vol. 93, 1982, p. 436.)
Physicists, of course, know why: The gap at mass 5 and 8 would prevent nuclides from forming new elements beyond helium. The only element which hydrogen normally can change into is helium—and nothing else! In addition, it is only within a star—with its high temperature—that hydrogen can change into helium. It could not have done it in an initial explosion of nothing. Why not? Because "nothing exploding" would generate no heat, much less hydrogen!
(22) OLDER STARS DO NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL HEAVY ELEMENTS—The Big Bang theory also teaches that stars which have not exploded are also regularly producing heavy elements within them. In addition, the theorists have identified the stars which they believe to be "younger," middle-aged," and "older." If stars are regularly producing heavy elements, then we should be able to find more heavy elements in the older stars than in the younger ones. The older ones should have more heavy elements at their surface than the "younger" stars. But this theory is also contradicted by scientific evidence. Stars believed to be "young," such as the Bo star tau Scorpli, and stars thought to be very "old," such as the red giant epsilon Virginis, as well as stars in between—all show essentially the same chemical composition.
Spectroscopic analysis reveals that all stars—from "young" to "old"—have the same amount of heavier elements. All show essentially the same chemical composition. This fact negates the theory that stars are constantly changing hydrogen into heavier elements. The gap at mass 5 and 8 would prevent that from occurring.
(23) INTERSTELLAR GAS HAS A VARIETY OF ELEMENTS—According to the theory, gas floating in space outside of the island universes is leftover gas from the Big Bang, and therefore can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this is not true; extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it.
"Astronomers were startled to learn that the hot intracluster gas [gas between the galaxies of a cluster of galaxies] identified by its X-ray emission, is not the pristine hydrogen and helium famed shortly after the Big Bang and left over after galaxy formation, but is rich in heavy elements such as iron." —*Vera Rubin, "Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: The Past Decade, the Next Decade," in Science, Vol. 209, 1980, pp. 64-71.
(24) STARS AND GALAXIES EXIST—We have said that if the imaginary Big Bang had actually occurred, It could only have produced outward-moving gas. Not one star would ever form. So, the very existence of stars disproves that theorized original giant explosion!
A principle of physics is involved here: The evenness of the initial explosion would send out hydrogen through space with no matter, wind, or energy to conflict with it. The hydrogen fog would flow outward, never stopping, never clumping. It would continue moving on outward forever.
"The so-called background radiation rapidly converted most doubters to belief in the Big Bang itself, but it did not square with at least one of the Big Bang's presumed consequences.
"Events in the earliest epoch after the momentous instant are assumed to have determined the distribution of matter throughout the expanding cosmos. To explain the large-scale structures seen in the universe today—most obviously, galaxies— Big Bang proponents suggest that within the first few minutes there were variations in the concentration of mass from region to region. Called density fluctuations, these variations would cause matter to clump together into ever greater concentrations.
"The problem was to reconcile the apparent evenness of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background radiation, with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.). A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an increasingly rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud." —*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 117.
(25) ONLY INCREASINGLY RARIFIED CLOUD—All a Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly rarified (ever thinner and less dense) gas cloud. It would not become thicker, but ever thinner, with each atom moving farther and farther away from neighboring atoms.
There would be nothing in the total emptiness of space to cause the theorized "density fluctuations," that *Gamow and his associates would like to imagine as a possible solution to the problem. The above quotation is clear enough: all a "Big Bang" would produce would be "an increasingly rarified gas cloud." That means that, out in space, the gaseous particles would continually spread farther and farther apart from one another. That is all that would happen after a Big Bang. That is a scientific fact and cannot be controverted.
"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.
(26) THERE ARE STARS AND GALAXIES ALL THROUGH SPACE—Another interesting point is that, if the Big Bang really occurred and could actually produce stars and galaxies—those stellar objects would only be found along a narrow strip at the outer edges of the universe. This is due to the fact that matter exploding outward from the initial Big Bang would flow outward forever, with nothing to slow or stop it. If it were possible for the gas to produce any clumped objects, they with the remaining gas would just keep on journeying outward. There would be nothing—gas or stars—in the middle!
Most of space would be empty, with the exploded matter off on the edges in a gigantic wave, ever on the go. Never clumping, never slowing, ever moving outward, it would continue onward through frictionless space. In addition, along any given portion of the outer perimeter strip, that outward movement would be in only one direction.
But astronomical observations clearly reveal that the universe is everywhere filled with the bright forms of stellar objects. Nor are they moving in one direction only.
(27) DISPROVED BY DISTANT UNIVERSE—According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing into. This would mean that the more distant stars and galaxies would be much younger than those nearest us, but this does not square with the facts which we observe through optical, radio, and other radiation telescopes. The more distant stars are like those nearby.
Assuming that the speed of light is constant, in accordance with *Einstein's theory (although his theory is questioned by several reputable astronomers), as we look out into space we are looking far back in time—millions of years back.. If this be true, then in the far reaches of space we should see evidences of a very young universe, but instead we find that the most distant parts are like those nearest our own planet.
"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 when 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].
(28) UNEXPLAINED ANGULAR MOMENTUM—Origin of matter and origin of universe theories cannot explain angular momentum. To put it in simpler terms, why do the stars turn? why do the galaxies rotate? why do planets rotate about suns and stars about galactic centers? why do stars orbit in binaries and stellar clusters?
There is no doubt but that that circular action is vitally necessary for planetary, stellar, and galactic stability. It has to be that way or everything would fly off here and there and crash into one another. But how could rotation (turning) and revolutions (orbiting) have started? How could angular momentum be put into such perfectly balanced orbits all through space?
29) ANGULAR MOMENTUM AND MOMENTUM-MASS RELATIONSHIP— Throughoutthe universe a delicate relationship exists between the mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (the rapidity with which it rotates). Why is this? The bigger the object, the slower It tends to rotate. Big Bang theorists cannot explain this. It cannot just be a coincidence.
"Pick any astronomical object. Divide its angular momentum by its total mass and also by its average density raised to the 1 /6 power. The resulting number (call it Q) will be equal to the mass itself raised to roughly the 0.7 power.
"Numerological hocus-pocus? No, it seems that this is a universal property of bodies. Whether you pick a lowly asteroid, a star, a galaxy, or even the mighty Virgo cluster of galaxies, it works. The relationship is decisively shown by the straight line on the logarithmic chart. . prepared by L. Carrasco, M. Roth, and A. Serrano at the Mexican Institute of Astronomy." —"How Things Spin, " Sky and Telescope, 64:228 (1982).
(30)MANY STARS ROTATE TOO FAST—If stars were caused by the collapse—or inward gravitational pull—of hydrogen gas, then stars should not have the high rotational speeds which they exhibit.
"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 circulating 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.
If stars have been caused by "the inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds," then why do the stars rotate? They should not have their high rotational speeds. In fact, those very rotational speeds would throw off loose gas, not pull it inward.
(31) HIGH-SPIN STARS—There is no way that stars could spin (rotate) or orbit (revolve) if, before star formation, there was only outward exploding gas (from a *George Gamow Big Bang origin) or even randomly floating gas (from a *Fred Hoyle steady state origin). Either way, there would be no means by which the turning movements could start. (More on the steady state theory later in this chapter. Eventually repudiated by its originator, it teaches that empty space between galaxies is continually changing itself into hydrogen!)
Nevertheless, theorists have tried to patch together an idea how the gas could somehow have started turning. They tell us that stars in some unknown way somehow manage to start spinning, but later slow down with age.
Yet stars have now been found which spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars! Not only does this discovery work havoc with the "spin-down with age" theory, but it would require a mechanism for adding larger amounts of angular momentum for a whole class of stars. Our sun rotates once every 25 days, but these newly-discovered high-spin stars complete a single rotation in less than a day! The fastest of them, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours! Matter-origins theories are totally confounded by such facts.
The large percentage of these high-spin stars is surprising, as *Soderblom and *Stouffer have noted:
"Spectroscopic study by David Soderblom and John Stouffer of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., of the Dopplershifted 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).
(32) STARS THAT ORBIT BACKWARDS—In chapter 3 (Origin of the Solar System), we will learn about planets that orbit the wrong way, confounding theories of planetary evolution. But there are stars that do it also!
Certain very small stars (called "subdwarfs") orbit opposite to that of other stars.
"These subdwarfs. . are not traveling with the sun in its giant orbit around the hub of our galaxy, and consequently they are moving with high speeds relative to the sun and in one general direction—that opposite to the direction which the galactic rotation is carrying our sun." —*M. and *G. Burbidge, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe of Motion (1984), p. 137.
(33) STARS THAT MOVE TOO FAST—There are high-velocity stars which are traveling far too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins. Pulsars, as a class, possess very high velocities. Some apparently exceed galactic escape velocities. For more on this, see *David Helfand, et. al., "Pulsar Proper Motions," Astrophysical Journal, 21311 (1977).
"It has been found that many, probably most, of them are moving rapidly, with speeds often exceeding 100 km/sec. Furthermore, the average of the height of the pulsars above the galactic plane is considerably greater than is normal for the objects from which they presumably originated." —*D.B. Larson, Universe of Motion (1984), p. 230.
(34) UNIVERSAL ROTATION—Evidence is accumulating that, not only do asteroids, planets, and stars rotate, —but the entire universe does also! Such a fact would, of course, greatly increase the positional stability of the universe. But it does not agree with explosion theories of matter (Big Bang, etc.), nor with continuous hydrogen creation theories (steady state).
Evidence for universal rotation includes position angles and polarization's of radio sources, and vorticity as seen in microwave background radiation, and other statistical asymmetries.
For more on this, see *P. Birch, "Is the Universe Rotating?" Nature, 298:451 (1982); "is There Really Evidence for Universal Rotation?" Astrophysical Journal, 28711 (1984).
(35) THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ANTIMATTER—Any type of initial origin of matter would produce equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter are ever found in space.
The Big Bang theory includes the requirement that it had to produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter (positrons, antiprotons, etc.). Two expensive neutrino detectors (the Kamiokande-II in Kamiokia, Japan, and the IMB near Cleveland, Ohio) maintain an ongoing program of neutrino detection and analysis. But only very small amounts of neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. Little strikes the earth and it comes from all directions.
That fact may seem insignificant, but to astronomers it is a serious obstacle to the Big Bang theory.
"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 American Scientist, 71 (1983), p. 479.
Most of the "antimatter" in the universe is to be found in the imaginative theories of evolutionists. It does not really exist.
"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 for antigalaxies."
Antimatter is simple enough: It is just a regular atom with its spin direction reversed. Its south magnetic pole is, therefore, up instead of down. Because its charge is reversed, it normally unites with matter as soon as it is formed and destroys both.
Although most types of "antimatter" do not actually exist outside an experimental laboratory, yet the facts about its nature produce serious problems for the theory. First, theoreticians cannot figure out how antimatter could have separated from matter after the Big Bang, and, second, prior to separating from each other, they should have destroyed one another!
"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? . . 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.
So the situation is simple enough: A selfcreation of matter (which is what these various stellar evolutionary theories begin with) would produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Half of the hydrogen atoms would have their electrons spinning one direction, while the other half would be spinning the other direction. The result would be opposite-charged hydrogen atoms which would immediately fly toward one another and instantly destroy both in a mutual holocaust.
The following brief review will help you in your understanding of matter and antimatter:
Matter: in the center is the nucleus. It is composed of a varied number of particles called protons (positive charged) and neutrons (no charge; electrically neutral). These particles are called nuclides, and together are called nucleons.
Around the nucleus orbits electrons (negative charged). They are whirling fast around the nucleus. Eight electrons can be thus orbiting the nucleus at a certain distance out from it. After that, a new collection of electrons may orbit at a distance farther out from the nucleus. Each group of eight (or less) electrons is called a "shell. "
Think of ft as a dot in the center (the nucleus), with a ring around ft (the first shell with its orbiting electrons). Beyond that are additional rings.
The proton and the neutron carry equal though opposite electric charges, yet the proton is 1,836 times as massive as the electron. The diameter of the nucleus is very small; it is only 1/100,000th that of the diameter of the entire atom, including its orbiting electrons.
The number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in each atom determines which element it is. Hydrogen is the simplest, with one proton and one electron. All the elements except hydrogen have neutrons.
Nuclides with equal numbers of protons are isotopes, nuclides with equal numbers of neutrons are isotones.
Antimatter: Antimatter has all the charges reversed. In the center of antimatter hydrogen is an antiproton (negative charged), and circling around it is a positron (positive charged).
Some scientists have theorized that there is "invisible" antimatter out there somewhere. But (1) antimatter would not be "invisible." Although it has an opposite charge, it is like matter in every other way. (2) If large amounts of antimatter existed, it would be destroying matter and we would see the effects of that mutual destruction.
Another way-out theory is that, when the Big Bang exploded, the matter went one direction and the antimatter went the other! It all sorted itself out to begin with, and then by mutual agreement decided to go in opposite directions. Aside from the fact that atoms are not quite that intelligent, the initial self-creation of matter would produce a completely equal amount of both types, entirely mixed together. Total war would occur before the evolutionist's theorized peace council could be convened.
"There are some theories, however, which have been proposed to account for the apparent lack of antimatter in the universe. The best of these theories require that the universe be expanding evenly in two directions and at a different rate in the third direction (dimension). But this, too, is not observed." —Gerardus D. Bouw, "Cosmic Space and Time, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 29.
*Gary Steigman summarizes a number of reasons why scientists can know that antimatter is almost entirely lacking.
"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).
In 1928, *Paul Dirac, a Cambridge mathematician, predicted a new atomic particle would be found. Identical to the electron in every respect, it would have a positive charge. *Carl D. Anderson, a physicist at Caltech, found it in 1932 while searching in cloud chambers for cosmic rays. Anderson named it the positron. This was the first "antimatter" ever discovered. Since then, researchers have found that, whenever they split atoms and make particles in accelerators, an equal number of negative particles (matter) and positive particles (antimatter) are the result. The nuclear researchers are astonished at the discovery, for this reason: (1) Although in laboratories an equal amount of matter and antimatter is always produced, yet (2) outside of the laboratories in our world and in the universe—there is only matter! Only a great Intelligence could have filled the universe with matter only, when normal atom-splitting always produces both matter and antimatter.
"Even more fascinating was the realization confirmed by a series of experiments during the 1950s and 1960s—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.
This is similar to the left and right-handed amino acid quandary we will learn about in chapters 9 and 10: When amino acids are made in the laboratory, equal numbers of both types are produced, —yet only one type exists in the amino acids found in living creatures. Likewise, when atomic particles are produced in the laboratories, both negative and positive particles are equally made, yet, with hardly an exception, only the negative exists in nature.
The Big Bang theory would require that an equal amount of matter and antimatter be originally made at the time of the initial explosion; yet the universe only has matter, and lacks the antimatter. This is a strong evidence against the Big Bang—and any other theory of initial selfcreation of matter in the universe.
(36) A BIG BANG EXPLOSION WOULD HAVE DESTROYED ALL MATTER—Someone will say, "There is no antimatter because the matter destroyed it just after the Big Bang occurred." But, not so. The Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Both would immediately have destroyed each other. Nothing would be left; no matter at all! If anything could possibly remain, it would be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Gradually, over a period of time, those particles would have attracted each other like magnets and annihilated one another till nothing remained.
This is an extremely important point and totally rules out any possibility of a chance origin of matter, such as could be caused by the Big Bang or any other theory of origin of matter (steady state universe, oscillating universe, inflationary universe, etc.; all of which will be discussed later in this chapter).
If both negative and positive particles had been produced in nature —they would have destroyed one another, since, as soon as they are made in the laboratory, they must be Instantly photographed—because the next instant they come together and explode, annihilating each other! Big Bang theorists offer the weak argument that the antimatter somehow "got separated" from matter after the initial explosion—and formed separate "antimatter stars."
"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.
37) THE UNIVERSE IS LUMPY—We already know that hydrogen gas can not form itself into stars, but even assuming that it could, the outflowing gas from the Big Bang would be too smooth to produce the needed lumps to produce the stars. This is called the "heterogeneity problem."
Instead of homogenous (smooth) matter, everywhere we turn in the universe we find that nearly all matter is clumped together into stars and galaxies. Yet, according to Big Bang theory, this cannot be. The even outward flow of hydrogen gas from the initial explosion would not have produced these objects. This heterogeneity problem is deeply troubling to the evolutionists.
The astronomers see the problem this way: (1) The Big Bang theory should have produced a "homogenous" universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward with, at best, almost no "inhomogenities," or lumps such as stars and island universes. But in the universe around us, we see very little gas and a lot of stellar objects.
(2) As we shall discuss shortly under "background radiation," because there are so many stars and galaxies, the left-over gas should not be smooth—yet it is extremely smooth.
"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. Allven, 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 globally 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, could accrete.
"For now, some cosmologists all but ignore this most vexatious 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 Pabusky, "Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?" Science 81, 2:96, June 1981.
(38) THE UNIVERSE IS FULL OF SUPERCLUSTERS—The stars and galaxies, with their intricate and interworking orbits, could never result from random explosions. But, recently, it has been found that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger superclusters! Big Bang theory, with its smooth radiation, can never in any way account for the existence of such organized structures.
Scientists cannot give any satisfactory reason for how planets, stars, and galaxies could be produced out of smooth, outflowing gas. Nor can they explain the origin of their complicated, balanced, interrelated orbits.
Mankind gradually learned that moons cluster about planets, planets around stars, and stars around galaxies. Then scientists discovered still larger collections: Galaxies cluster in larger galactic clusters, and, most recently, the discovery was made that these large clusters are grouped in super clusters! They do not crash together, but have been carefully placed near one another; indeed, they often circle in mutual orbits! (More on this in chapter 4, The Stars).
"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.
Recent surveys have shown a surprisingly lumpy distribution of galaxies. They are associated in groups, and between them are vast bubble-like voids in space. The overall arrangement is described as "filamentary," "foamy," or "Swiss cheese-like." ("Cosmic Foam" In Science 86:7(3):8; a "Massive Supercluster Tests Theories of Its Evolution," in Research and Development 282):48; `J. Silk, "Discovering a Bubbly Universe," in Nature 320:12). We see here inhomogeneity on a vast scale of billions of light years, yet Big Bang theorists require a strictly smooth universe.
The "Big Bangers" (as they are sometimes referred to) casually reply that "gravity waves" produced the galaxies. But, as we have observed, gravity could not do it. Gravity could not form a star or planet out of gas; make a galaxy into its marvelous disk network of stars; produce the precisely balanced orbits of planets, stars, and galaxies; or produce the arrangement of the supercluster groups of galaxies.
Evolutionary theory also requires that the stars initially formed themselves, and eventually organized themselves into the involved orbital networks called galaxies. Somehow, these then formed into superclusters. But there is neither enough time nor adequate celestial mechanics to produce such systems.
(39) THREE LUMPY PROBLEMS—There are three striking problems with this cosmic lumpiness.
The first problem, is that, according to the Big Bang theory, there should be no lumps at all Instead of stars and galaxies, there should only be outrushing gas journeying on forever.
"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.''—*B. Patrusky, "Why Is the Cosmos Lumpy?" in Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.
The Big Bang had to begin with smooth, flowing gas, and such gas could never later clump together.
"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.
The second problemis the fact that, although hydrogen gas in outer space is so smooth and uniform, yet trillions upon trillions of stars are supposed to have originated from such gas. If the gas is so smooth, how could it have evolved into stars?
"It seems difficult to believe that, whereas visible matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all scales, the invisible intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous. "—*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, " in Science 167 (1970), p. 1203.
Scientists are vexed with this difficult question: how could stars possibly have originated out of nothing more than thin, evenly-smooth gas? This puzzle annihilates not only the Big Bang theory, but all other cosmologies as well.
The third problem is that the astounding "lumpy chunks" existing all through the universe, are in striking contrast with the smoothness of the microwave background radiation.
What is this "background radiation" that keeps being referred to? We will consider it in detail later in this chapter.
(40) NO THEORETICAL "INFINITE POINT" FOR MATTER—It may be theoretically possible for all matter to unite in a single point, but not in reality.
Some Big Bang theories initially compress all universal matter into a single point and then have it explode. Others begin with all the matter in the universe appearing out of nothing, first in a single point of solidity, and then rapidly expanding outward in an explosion.
*Larson laughs at the idea, as well as all the rest of the foolishness in the Big Bang mentality.
"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 from which it can be deduced that 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.
(41) NO POPULATION III STARS—According to Big Bang theory, the outflowing hydrogen from the initial outward explosion somehow managed to push itself into stars. How that could happen is anyone's guess. The first stars produced are theorized as having had hydrogen, a little helium, and essentially none of the other elements. These are called "Population III stars."
Many of the Population III stars are then said to have blown up, producing gas with some heavy elements (in this context, elements other than hydrogen or helium). The gas then pushed itself into "Population II stars." These stars—in turn are thought to have exploded, making "Population I stars," richer still in heavy elements.
A woeful problem is this: There are no Population 111 stars in the skies—anywhere! This is a great crisis. Where did they go to? Admittedly, many are supposed to have blown up, but there should still be some remaining. But they are nowhere to be found!There are stars in the sky which have varying amounts of heavy elements, and the theorists have tried to arbitrarily divide them into "Population II" and "Population I" stars—but there are no "Population III" stars. It is the theory which is blowing up, not the stars.
"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-11 objects requires a previous generation of stars to perform the necessary nucleosynthesis. Such primordial 'Population-III' stars would contain vanishingly small abundance's of heavy elements."—"Where is Population III?" Sky and Telescope, 64:19 (1982). ["Nucleosynthesis" - production of heavier elements by nuclear fusion.]
(As discussed earlier in this chapter, several problems are involved here: (1) stars only infrequently blow up. (2) Only supernova explosions (very large star explosions) are said to be able to produce any particular amounts of heavy elements—and only about one supernova explosion occurs every century in our own galaxy. Such explosions occur too infrequently to accomplish the needed task—which is to produce all the trillions times trillions of stars in the skies! (3) One supernova which did explode—the Crab nebula in A.D. 1054—produced gas which now spreads over a volume of space some 5 light years in diameter, and is easy to see through telescopes and easy to analyze spectroscopically. Recent analysis of that gas showed that supernova explosions do NOT produce richer quantities of heavy elements!)
"There appears to be no observational evidence for the existence of true Population III stars in our Galaxy. They may only be found in an earlier generation of galaxies which formed in the denser regions of space, such as the Virgo cluster." — *J G. Hills, "Where Are the Population III Stars?" Astrophysical Journal, 258167 (1982).
There are no Population III stars, but the theory says they ought to be there. Did they journey to a portion of the sky where they are hiding from us? In order to defend the theory, astronomers are paid to search for special stars which do not exist.
"Direct, visual evidence for Population III stars is almost nonexistent. This is not proof they do not exist. It may just indicate we haven't looked far enough or in the right places . . The failure to find Population III stars or residue from them would remove a vital chapter from the accepted history of the universe the chapter following the postulated Big Bang."—* W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 19.
Elsewhere we discuss the "missing mass" problem. It has been theorized that that mass is actually in invisible "dark matter" which cannot be seen, but which is all through the universe. That is one way to solve evolutionary theory problems! Just imagine the answer is invisible matter! It is being suggested that that is where the Population III stars are hiding; they are now invisible, but still there!
"The dynamics of clusters of galaxies suggests that considerable dark matter must exist in the universe—the so-called 'missing mass'. This matter could be made up in part from Population III stars, which are now dark." —*Ibid.
(42) LOW AND HIGH METAL STARS—According to astronomers, stars with high "metallicities" are stars which have more than the usual amount of elements above hydrogen and helium; "low metal stars" have less of those heavier elements. Evolutionists theorize that the central stars in galaxies are "younger stars" and the stars in globular clusters are "much younger" still. But the "metallicity" of both types of stars are too high to fit the theory! The compositions of the stars do not fit the theory! Both have far too much of the heavier elements.
"Even more of a mystery is how globular clusters acquired any heavy elements at all, given that the big bang is thought to have produced only hydrogen and helium . .
"Analyses have shown that metal concentrations in globular-cluster stars range from about two-hundredth of the levels observed in the sun [a typical "Population I" star] to only slightly less than solar values." —*Ivan R. King, "Globular Clusters, "Scientific American, 252:79, June 1985.
"Astronomers now hypothesize that the Big Bang generated mainly hydrogen and helium. The heavier elements (the "metals") were built up in the universe over billions of years by stellar nucleosynthesis [thermonuclear reactions]. As stars died they bequeathed the metal they had synthesized to later generations [of stars]. In this view, the more metals a star possesses, the younger it is [because there are more exploded stars in its ancestry] . .
"The increasing metallicities of stars and the stars in globular clusters as the centers of galaxies are approached is in direct conflict with the dicta that central stars in galaxies are old and globular clusters are the oldest aggregations in the cosmos . .
"Three of the hypotheses being challenged here [by the fact that all group-types of stars have too much metallicity for the Big Bang theory] are: (1) The place (age) of the globular clusters in the evolutionary history of the universe; (2) The validity of 'metallicity' as an indicator of stellar age; and (3) The hypothesis that the fusion of light elements is the basic energy source of stars .
"The variations among the globular clusters are sometimes explained as being due to their creation in parts of the galaxy where the compositions of the dust and gas were different—hardly an explanation!" —* W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), pp. 66, 64.
(43) BACKGROUND RADIATION IS NOT A PROOF—Background radiation, first discovered in 1965, is said to be the single, clear-cut evidence that the Big Bang occurred. But this radiation comes from the stars; it is not "the last dying breath of the Big Bang." There are several reasons why we can have such certainty in rejecting background radiation as an evidence of the Big Bang.
Background radiation, along with the speed theory of the redshift, are generally considered to be the two main evolutionary "evidences" for the Big Bang. Both are extremely important to Big Bang theory, for they constitute the only presumed "evidence" that it ever occurred. Because of the importance attached to these two lines of "evidence," we will give them special attention. In the process of doing so, we will also consider quasars.
We will first consider background radiation, and why it does not support the theory:
There is a faint amount of heat radiating through outer space. Since it comes uniformly from all directions, it is believed that it is the same throughout the universe. Please understand that this is an extremely small amount of "heat"; in fact, it is only a little less than 30K above absolute zero! This radiation is but a microwave type of "heat," —but there is not much "heat" in it! The temperature of background radiation registers at -2700C 1-4540F].
("Kelvin" is the name given to an absolute temperature scale, in which 0°K. is absolute zero. Kelvin uses the Celsius scale, so each degree Kelvin would be equal in extent to a degree on the Celsius scale. "Absolute zero" would be 0°K, -273°C, or -459°F.)
Why would there be any heat in outer space? Why is it radiating evenly, smoothly in all directions? There are several possibilities, two of which are these: One is the evolutionary view that it is the final heat flowing from the location of the Big Bang. The other view is that it is nothing more than radiation from the stars.
Let us for a moment pause and clarify this radiation and its "heat" value: There is a variety of electromagnetic radiation's. At the lowest level are to be found the high-energy, short wavelength forms. Apparently the lowest are gamma rays; next comes X-rays, and then ultraviolet (sunburn) rays. Then, we pass through the visible spectrum of light: violet, blue, green, yellow, and red. As the waves lengthen and the energy in the radiation becomes less intense, we pass on up to infrared (heat rays), then microwaves, and thence on into radio waves.
"Background radiation" includes a little of several types of radiation, but is primarily composed of microwaves. Later in this discussion, we will also mention a NASA analysis of the kind of "heat" radiation we are best acquainted with: infrared radiation.
Obviously, background radiation does not have a form of "heat" we are used to, for it is not infrared radiation. However, scientists refer to its Kelvin value as "heat," so we will also. In addition, scientists frequently mention that background radiation has a Kelvin heat value of 3°, but that figure is only a rounded number; it is actually 2.7°K. That is why you will find both figures used in this discussion and the included quotations.
In 1965, *A.A. Penzias and *R.W. Wilson, researchers at Bell Laboratories, using a sensitive radio astronomy telescope, discovered low-energy microwave radiation coming from outer space. This energy is extremely slight. Big Bang theorists claim that this background radiation somehow proves the Big Bang. They say it is the last part of the explosion!
They originally said that the proof would rest in four presumed facts about the background radiation: (1) It would come from only one direction from where the Big Bang occurred. (2) It would have the right radiative strength to match the Big Bang mathematical theory. (3) It would emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would not be a smooth radiation. But, with the passing years and additional research Into background radiation, all four "facts" fizzled out. It has become a leading objection to the Big Bang Theory.
In desperation, millions of dollars have been spent on special space shuttle experiments and satellite research projects, in an effort to salvage background radiation. Yet, at the same time, in public statements background radiation is presented as the special "evidence" that the Big Bang must have occurred. But this "evidence" is so weak that many scientists acknowledge it as such.
"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.
1 – It is omnidirectional. Since its discovery, scientists have been unable to match its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions. Background radiation comes from every direction, while the Big Bang theory requires that it should come from only one direction—from where the Big Bang explosion occurred.
It was at first thought that background radiation came from only one direction. Big Bang theorists were jubilant at the news. But, at that very time, *Hannes Alfven, professor of Physics at the University of California (San Diego) and one of the world's leading astrophysicists, did careful research and disclosed that even if the background radiation did have a singleness of isotropy (single-directional radiation, or radiation from only one direction in space), the Big Bang would still be only one of several possible conclusions as to the nature of such radiation.
"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.
Then, a few years later, scientists discovered that the background radiation was coming from many directions. In 1981, Science News reported that, instead of coming from one direction, background radiation had been discovered to be coming from all directions, thus disprovingany connection with a so-called "Big Bang." There is no directional uniformity to this radiation, and lacking it the radiation proves nothing. As the "last dying breath of the Big Bang," this radiation should be flowing from where that primeval explosion took place. But, instead, it is flowing evenly from every direction.
"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 any more. 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.
Yet this need not have come as a surprise. *Arno Penzias and *Robert Wilson were the radio astronomers at Bell Laboratories who in the 1960s first discovered background radiation (and in 1978 received a Nobel Prize in Physics for having done so). When they first heard this radiation on the Lab's new microwave horn antenna, they wrote in their notes that it was a lot of static at the very short wavelength end of the spectrum, and that the static noise came from all directions. Within a year, they noted that, because it was coming from all directions, the radiation was equally strong at all hours of the day and all seasons of the year.
2 • It Is too weak. Another problem with background radiation, is that, theoretically, it should be far more powerful than it is. Because it is so weak, it does not meet the requirements for an after-radiation from the Big Bang. The radiation remaining from the Big Bang would have been between ten and a thousand times more powerful.
"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.
3- It lacks the proper spectrum. Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation.
*Narlikar explains the problem in New Scientist (July 2, 1981). The radiation should have the "black-body spectrum," calculated by *Max Planck decades earlier. But recent studies reveal that there are worrisome differences that do not fit the evolutionary cosmology.
"Black-body radiation" is the name given by scientists to radiation emitted by matter when it is heated. Although this radiation is usually in the form of light, physicists speak of it as black-body radiation, on the assumption that the radiation itself absorbs light perfectly, reflecting none, as a black body would do. In reverse, it would also radiate perfectly in a wide band of wavelengths. But background radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.
4 - The spectrum should be far hotter than it is. The heat emitted by the background radiation should have a far higher temperature, if a Big Bang had occurred 10-20 billion years ago. Here is how three scientists explain it:
"Is there a way to decide whether a 3°K blackbody radiation spectrum has come from an expanded high temperature radiation or from the heating of a substance from zero to 3°? Yes . .
"It is a known fact that there is dust absorbing a fraction of the galaxy's light. Therefore, this dust must be heating up. If the galaxy really is billions of years old, our galaxy's dust would be pretty hot by now, approximately 100°K. It would emit a 100°K blackbody radiation spectrum many orders of magnitude more intense than a 3°K blackbody spectrum. The 100 degree spectrum certainly would be there. If the 3°K radiation is a leftover from the big bang, say, 10 billion years ago, then the galaxy would contain two superimposed blackbody spectra. The spectrum from the big bang would be centered at 3°K, and the spectrum from galactic dust heating would be centered at 100°K.
"Since there is only one measured blackbody spectrum as far as we know, and since galactic gas and dust heating does occur, the one spectrum must be due to galactic dust and gas—the spectrum consistent with a recent creation." —Russel Akridge, Thomas Barnes, and Harold S. Slusher, "A Recent Creation Explanation of the 3°K Background Black Body Radiation," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1981, p. 182.
Background radiation is too cool. The temperature of the theoretical Big Bang radiation should have been 5°K. But It is not; It Is only 2.7 ° K (2.73 degrees K, to be exact).
5 - It Is too smooth
5 - It Is too smooth. More recent research discloses that this background radiation is definitely too smooth or uniform to be of use to the Big Bang theory. The radiation from the Big Bang had to be lumpy enough to produce stars and galaxies, and this residual background radiation ought to have similar qualities. But, in marked contrast, it is too smooth, or, as the scientists, say, "too homogenous."
"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.
Background radiation is too smooth; too smooth in the extreme! The original Big Bang radiation would have had to be lumpy in order to produce stars (Of course, that is if stars could be made by floating gas). Large amounts of money have been—and continue to be—spent in an attempt to locate lumps in background radiation, but all without success.
Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) was launched by NASA in the Fall of 1989. The mission of this satellite was specifically to analyze the background radiation.
"Its instructions can detect faint microwave radiation, thought to be left over from the early universe." —*Stardate radiobroadcast, March 29, 1990.
But It quickly became apparent that COBE was unable to prove a relationship between the background radiation and the Big Bang. In fact, just the opposite had taken place:
"COBE's job is to explore the microwave background in a detailed way. The spacecraft has already revealed some surprises. As 1990 began it was announced that preliminary sweeps of the sky by COBE showed that the early universe must have been extremely smooth.
"That's surprising, because we know we see vast structures in our universe; huge clusters of galaxies and expanding voids between them.
"Many cosmologists [astronomical theorists] expected COBE to reveal small disturbances in an otherwise uniform flow outward from the Big Bang. These disturbances might have provided the seeds for the large structures we see today [stars and galaxies]. So far, the disturbances are missing, and the evolution from a smooth early universe to today's colossal structures remains puzzling."— *Ibid.
Evolutionists have suggested "pinch effects" and "plasma bottles" as a solution to the problem. But Bouw explains that the lack of magnetic fields in outer space rules out such theoretical solutions:
"Evolutionary models have never been successful in accounting for the formation of a single star, let alone an entire galaxy or cluster of galaxies. Virtually every [evolutionary] starformation model invoked today assumes that both stars and galaxies started out as density irregularities in the very early stages of the big bang. Without such an assumption, the physics of collapsing gas clouds will not allow for the formation of objects even remotely resembling the major constituents of the universe
"In order for such density irregularities to be present in the early stages of the big bang, certain explanations have been proposed. These include magnetohydrodynamical `pinch' effects (like plasma bottles or magnetostrictions), but the existence of such pinch-effects in the early stages of the universe requires that there presently be a cosmic magnetic field. The existence for such a cosmic magnetic field is in doubt, there being conflicting evidence for and against it. Furthermore, the 3-degree Kelvin black-body radiation field shows no evidence for any significant clumps of matter." —Gerardus D. Bouw, "Cosmic Space and Time" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 29.
6 - A failure from the beginning. In 1926, *Arthur Eddington predicted that a normal radiation of a temperature of about 3.2°K was being emitted by interstellar dust particles. Later this radiation was discovered, and was found to have a temperature of 2.7° K, which was fairly close. Eddington's prediction was made prior to and totally separate from Big Bang theory. It was a prediction about stars and had nothing to do with the Big Bang.
With Eddington's prediction in mind, in 1948 while *R.A. Alpher and *R. Herman were working out their Big Bang model, they predicted that a microwave background radiation would be discovered, and that it would come from only one direction—the direction from where the Big Bang explosion occurred, and that it would have a radiation temperature of 5°K. In 1965 those two Bell Lab workers found the radiation, but it did not fulfill the Big Bang specifications in either way. It was less than 3°K [-270°C; -4540Flin temperature, and it came uniformly from all directions.
Although most astronomers everywhere jumped onto the Big Bang bandwagon because of the Bell Lab discovery, yet we have seen that it does not fit the requirements of the theoretical Big Bang.
"This energy density [of the background radiation] is not too different from the energy densities observed in other astrophysical phenomena in the universe, such as starlight, cosmic rays, galactic magnetic fields and so on. Does this mean that the microwave background also is of astrophysical origin and not a relic of the big bang?" —*V. Narlikar, "Was there a Big Bang?" New Scientist Vol. 91, pp. 19-21.
7 - What !s the source of background radiation? The more researchers explore the universe, the lumpier they find it to be; but with two outstanding exceptions. The first of these is background radiation (microwave radiation), and the second is infrared radiation. Both of these are extremely smooth, and both are found in outer space.
Evolutionists declare that background radiation is the last dying breath of the original Big Bang. We have already discussed a number of reasons why that is not true (omnidirectionality, temperature, etc.)
We will here suggest that background radiation may be nothing more than radiation from stars and galaxies. Simple as that.
"The interstellar dust and gas in our galaxy has absorbed enough of our galaxy's own light to raise its temperature from zero to 3°K . . It is the 3°K dust and gas that radiates the 3°K radiation." —Russell Akridge, Thomas Barnes, and Harold S. Slusher, "A Recent Creation Explanation of the 3° K Background Black Body Radiation" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1981, p. 159. [The complete 4-page article provides details in scientific terminology with mathematical formulas. If you wish to go deeper into this topic, the article is well worth reading.]
In November 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), the first satellite specifically designed "to measure the Big Bang's leftover radiation." At great expense this satellite was placed in the skies in order to help prove the Big Bang theory. But COBE failed to accomplish its intended purpose. It only obtained additional evidence that background radiation did not fit the pattern.
Earth-based measurements had already shown that this radiation is surprisingly even. So COBE was sent up to locate fluctuations in it. Equipped with three different types of extremely sensitive detectors, it was the mission of COBE to find some unevenness in the radiation—but it found none at all. Without some sort of turbulence or density fluctuations in the early universe, the theorists could not explain how perfectly smooth radiation flows could have produced stars and galaxies, and formed galactic clusters, and superclusters.
But, not only did COBE measure background (microwave) radiation, it also analyzed infrared radiation—and found that the measurements matched! Both were perfectly smooth, and in perfect agreement: A smooth curve with a black-body radiation at a temperature of 2.73° Kelvin was obtained for both microwave and infrared radiation! This was the most accurate temperature measurement for both radiations that had ever been made—and it indicates a common source for both types of radiation. That source would be—not the Big Bang—but the stars.
Thus, COBE only found confirmatory evidence that the radiation is stellar, not primeval. It was discovered that background (microwave) radiation has the same radiation as does infrared radiation. Aside from their wavelengths, both outer space radiations are alike in several significant aspects: temperature, smoothness, and omnidirectionality. This would indicate a common source for both. It is believed that both infrared radiation and background (microwave) radiation come from the stars.
 The Redshift
(44) THE REDSHIFT THEORY IS INCORRECT—The Red-shift is the second primary "evidence" used by evolutionists to prove the Big Bang theory.
"This redshift, observed in the spectral lines of distant galaxies and interpreted as a Doppler effect, is the key to cosmology." —*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), p. 252.
A theory about background radiation and a theory about the redshift are the two best "evidences" in favor of the Big Bang origin-of-universe theory. But the facts about background radiation do not match the evolutionary theory about the radiation, and the facts about the redshift do not match the evolutionary theory about it. We shall now turn our attention to the redshift:
One of several theories about the redshift has become a keystone holding together the Big Bang theory. This is because evolutionists have adopted an odd explanation of the redshift that would require that the farther a star is from us, the faster it is moving away from us,—and those stars farthest from us are moving away at incredibly fast speeds. This "speed theory," in turn, is the basis for yet another theory: the expanding universe theory. We shall discuss that later in this chapter.
This redshift speed theory would mean that all the stars out in space are rushing away from us. Evolutionists tell us that stars are moving outward from where the Big Bang originally took place. That, in brief, is why the speed theory of redshift is so crucial to the Big Bang theory.
The speed theory is now the generally-accepted scientific theory of the redshift, simply because evolutionary scientists refuse to consider any other explanation, and not many scientists dare buck the establishment and speak up. But some do.
Yet there are other explanations for the redshift that fit the scientific facts better, and there are scientific facts which directly disprove the evolutionists' theory of redshift.
But before we consider the evidence and those various explanations—exactly what is this redshift?
Relatively white light can be split by a triangular prism of glass into all the colors of the rainbow. Using a spectrometer, this can also be done to starlight. Dark vertical bands mark the spectrum at various points. Analyzing these bands, scientists can determine the type of chemical elements which are in each star. ("Spectral type" is a star's classification, based on its spectrum and keyed to its surface temperature and mass, "spectrogram" is a photograph of a star's spectrum; "spectroscopy" is the study of spectra.)
Ultraviolet is on one end of the spectrum and has a higher frequency and a shorter wavelength than visible blue light. On the other end of the visible spectrum is infrared (astronomers call it "red"). It has a lower frequency and a longer wavelength than visible red light. Every star and galaxy is red-shifted to some extent. The striking fact is that the farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light appears to us to be moved, or shifted, toward the red end. Scientists have named this strange oddity about starlight "the redshift."
That is the redshift. Now, what causes it? Here are four explanations:
1 - The Speed Red-shift. This theory is also called the "Doppler theory of redshift," and is the theory maintained by the supporters of evolution and stellar cosmology theories. We will here call it the "speedtheory." Scientists have theorized that this redshift in the star spectra occurs because all the stars of the heavens are rapidly moving away from us, but the shift could be caused instead by simple factors which are far less sensational.
As interpreted by the speed theory, all the stars and galaxies in the sky are moving away from us at very high velocities. Those stars farthest from us are moving away from us at the fastest speeds. The most distant stars are said to be traveling at close to the speed of light as they speed away from our little world. Oddly enough, the farther a star is from us, the faster it is said to be speeding away from us.
"Light from a moving object undergoes the same kind of wavelength shifting, or Doppler effect, that changes the pitch of a siren as a police car or ambulance speeds by: Light from objects approaching Earth is shifted toward the shorter wavelength blue end of the spectrum, and light from receding objects, toward the longer wavelength red end. The greater the shift, the swifter the rate at which an object is approaching or receding. . . The faster it is moving away from Earth, the more the constituent wavelengths of its light will be shifted toward the lower frequency, red end of the spectrum."—*Robert Somerville (ed.), Cosmic Mysteries, pp. 58, 87.
We will learn that, interpreting the universally-observed redshift in distant stellar objects, by the speed theory results in a number of fantastic theories. Yet the speed theory is clung to, for without it the Big Bang theory has almost no evidence in its favor.
2 - Other explanations of the redshift. Why does this shift in starlight occur? The distance from our planet to the star has something to do with it. This is quite obvious, and agreed upon by nearly everyone. To say it another way, the redshift is the apparent lengthening of a star's light on a spectrum in relation to how far away that star is from us.
This redshift of starlight is actually a decrease in the energy of light. It has traveled a great distance to reach us from a star, and by the time it arrives the light is not as strong as it once was. This decrease in energy results in a lengthening of the wavelength of that light, when measured with a spectrometer,
Since the redshift indicates a decrease in starlight energy, this loss of energy could be caused by a motion of the stars away from us (the speed theory).
But there are other possible reasons why that energy loss could occur as the light travels across the vast distances of outer space. Here are three of them:
 Gravitational Red-shifts. The pull of gravity on light rays could cause a loss of energy. This would include not only the star it first left, but other stars it passes by. From a study of eclipses, we already know that gravity actually bends light rays slightly. Gravity can and does affect starlight. It could also gradually slow those light rays as they speed through space. The result would be that the farther away a star is from us, the more it would reveal a redshift. None other than *Albert Einstein predicted that it would be discovered that gravity could bend light—and that it would cause a redshift. His prediction was first shown to be correct when the companion of Sirius, a small dwarf star, was found to bend starlight from Sirius.
"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.
"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 1960s this very small Einstein shift produced by our sun was detected."— *Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 50.
It is well known by scientists that gravity can slow light rays, bend their direction, and, when theoretically powerful enough, even reverse the direction of the light! In 1796, Pierre Laplace, believing that light was like ordinary matter, in that it could be slowed by gravity. He postulated that very large stars would prevent light from escaping and would thus be dark. In 1915, *Albert Einstein published his general theory of relativity, in which he showed that gravity can bend light. In 1916, *Karl Schwarzchild solved Einstein's 1915 equations, showing the theoretical amount of mass radius that would be required to produce enough gravity to stop light from traveling away from an object. There is no doubt but that the farther starlight has to travel to reach us, the more it will be slowed by gravity from stars and gas that it passes on its journey. This slowing will register as an ever-so-slight shifting of its spectrum toward the red.
Gravity from a star can bend distant light passing near it, and it can slow it also. Enough repetitions would slow starlight enough to skew its spectrum toward the infrared. The farther away is the star sending starlight to us, the greater will be the shift in that starlight toward the red.
Interestingly enough, no starlight spectrum is ever shifted toward the blue, but always toward the red. In all directions, this redshift of starlight has the same strength, relative to the distance that the star is from us.
"[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 redshiftis 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.
[2j Second-order Doppler shift. A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be red-shifted (the second-order Doppler Effect). This would occur if the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a common center.
Moons revolve around planets, planets about suns, and suns about galaxies. Each of these planets, suns, and galaxies—rotates about itself (our galaxy rotates at 500,000 miles an hour). It is very possible—even likely—that all the galaxies out in space travel in a gigantic circle around a central point in the universe. We know that such circular movement is necessary for balance and stability in moons, planets, and galaxies; why not for the universe as a whole? Such a universal rotation would add stability to all the island universes in relation to each other.
Yet that gigantic orbit would also cause a redshift in the spectra of star light.
(3) Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This would not be unusual. Other things lose energy, light rays could also. Keep in mind that the redshift is ever so slight. It indicates the loss of only a very small amount of energy. This is also called the "tired light theory. "
Any of the above three reasons alone, or together, could easily explain the redshift. It would explain why the stars and galaxies nearest us always have the least redshift, while those farthest away have the most.
Thus we find that the spectral redshift can easily be explained without inventing an exploding universe with the outermost objects rushing outward at 95 percent of the speed of tight. (Keep in mind that the speed of light is very great; approximately 186,000 miles a second. On this basis, a light-year is a vast distance of almost 6 trillion miles.)
Summarizing the above, (1) the speed theory of the redshift (also called the first-order Doppler effect redshift theory) is said to be another evidence of the Big Bang. But we have here of but another instance of using one theory to prove another. There are serious flaws in the speed theory; these flaws would be overcome by accepting one of (or a combination of) other possible redshift Interpretations: (2) Gravitational shift—The pull of gravity on light rays would cause a loss of energy in starlight. We know that light is affected by gravity. (3) Second-order Doppler shift—A light source moving at right angles to the observer will always be red-shifted. This would occur if the universe were slowly moving in a vast circle around a common center. Everything else in the universe is organized and mutually orbiting; why not the universe as a whole? Orbiting brings stability to heavenly bodies. (4) Energy-loss ("tired light") shift—Light waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across the great distances of space. Either one of these three theories, or in combination together, are easily able to explain why there is an energy loss as starlight moves toward us—and do it without the immense problems faced by the evolutionary theory.
3 - The Arp Discoveries. There is a powerful minority of astronomers who consider the current speed theory of the redshift, which is based solely on Doppler movement-away-from-us effect, to be a "frail assumption." Leading out is * Halton C. Arp of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories. He has produced a variety of convincing evidence, showing that there is no relation between redshift and distance of starlight from us.
Arp has spent over 30 years researching into these matters at some of the world's largest observatories. At the time of this writing, he is on the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in West Germany. * Kauffmann, another leading astrophysicist, in 1981 declared Arp to be "the most-feared astronomer on earth" (*W. Kaufmann III, "Most Feared Astronomer on Earth" in Science Digest 89(6):76-81, 1981, p. 117.) Arp's research is so pivotal, that it threatens to overturn several foundational bases of modern theoretical astronomy.
Here are three statements from Arp's latest book:
"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.
In the next section, we will briefly review the Hubble hypothesis as it relates to the redshift and expanding universe theories. In order to discuss Arp's discoveries, we should be aware of two facts:
 Bridged galaxies disprove the redshift theory. Galaxies are island universes, each with 100 million or more stars. Some of these galaxies have bridgework connections linking them together. The bridges prove that the pair of galaxies are close to each other. Arp has discovered a number of these connected galaxies—each of which have markedly different redshifts than the other! But if the Doppler effect theory of the redshift were correct, Arp would not have made such discoveries, since each pair of galaxies would share the same approximate distance from us!
 Quasars disprove the redshift theory. Quasars will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. These are unknown objects which show drastically-shifted spectrums toward the red. Arp has also made discoveries about quasars which provide additional evidence against the current redshift theory.
"The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in ap parent 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.
Commenting on the strange situation of quasars with one redshift, closely associated with galaxies with a different one, *Corliss says:
"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
The research of *Arp and his colleagues, *Burbidge, *Narlikar, and *Sulentic, has ranged all over the universe—and everywhere they have found examples of these linked structures with totally different redshifts.
"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 linked by luminous filaments, galaxies interacting gravitationally, chains of galaxies—in every conceivable case, we come out with the same answer: the 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, 54.
Arp has studied over 260 galaxies in more than 80 groups. In each one he has found significant redshift differences. Arp has tabulated 24 main galaxies and 38 discordant redshift companions, and has publisheda catalogue of hundreds of discordant redshifts. Yet he says his research has been ignored:
"This important result has largely been ignored by astronomers because it does not fit in with the current theoretical framework." — *H. Arp, "Further Examples of Companion Galaxies with Discordant Redshifts and Their Spectral Peculi arities," in Astrophysical Journal 263 (1982), p. 54.
The mathematical possibility of such discoveries occurring by chance are remote.
"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).
It becomes a major tragedy when evolutionary theory becomes more important than scientific advance, and highly-qualified researchers must be eliminated lest the theory be endangered.
"Burbidge and Arp are upset by what they see as a distressingly one-sided approach to the quasar redshift question by the community of astronomers, '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 refereed or 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? . .
" '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 Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On," Physics Today, 37:17, December 1984. [Heckman's statement, calling for recantation by Arp's group, is given in *TM. Heckman, et. al, "Low-Redshift Quasars, et. al " Astronomical Journal, 89:958 (1984).]
(More on what happened to *Arp is told later in this chapter, under the section, Quasars.)
4 - Summarizing the Arp Discoveries. Evolutionists desperately cling to their out-dated Doppler redshift theory in order to salvage their "origin of matter" theories. Therefore they ignore Arp's monumental research which disproves their redshift theory.
Summarizing the work of *Halton Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories in California, and now at the Max Planck Institute in Germany: He has spent 30 years conducting photographic research projects of stars and galaxies. His discoveries disprove the speed theory of the redshift. Among other things, he has found large numbers of celestial objects which are spatially connected in one way or another—yet which have totally different redshifts! This includes stars with galaxies, galaxies bridged with galaxies, and quasars bridged with galaxies. He has studied over 260 galaxies in more than 80 groups. In each he found significant redshift differences. After tabulating 24 main galaxies and 38 discordant redshift companions, he published a large scientific catalogue of them. His research stands as a powerful rebuke to those scientists who are determined to consider no research and no evidence, except that which favors their theories of matter and stellar evolution.
In addition to *Arp, other important scientists are also urging that energy-loss ("tired light") is the true explanation of the redshift. *Emil Wolf recently published an analysis of the mathematical basis for a non-Doppler redshift (Physical Review, March 31, 1986). *Amato, arriving at the same conclusion, explained that the result would be a much smaller universe:
"Thus, estimates of the size of the observable universe would shrink considerably—perhaps says Wolf, by a factor of 100 a more." —I. Amato, "Spectral Variation on an Universal Theme," Science News, 130:166 (1986).
And *Corliss declares that the tired light theory (the "energy-loss" redshift theory mentioned earlier) is highly significant; and concludes:
"P. LaViolette has compared the tired light cosmology b the standard [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).
Throughout this book we will find that evolutionary theoreticians continually run from the facts and fear them. But those facts remain. Gradually, decade after decade, a great mountain of evidence disproving every type of evolution—universal, biological, and geological—is being piled up. Before we reach the last page of this book, we will have viewed a portion of that mountain.
*Arp summarizes part of his research studies:
"Redshift measures at 21 cm wavelength have been made on over 100 galaxies in more than 40 different groups with the Arecibo radio telescope. These groups generally consist of a large spiral galaxy with one or more companions. This list of galaxies is supplemented with over 160 galaxies in more than 40 groups with a dominant galaxy that is brighter than 11.8 mag. These latter galaxies are gathered from the literature and have redshifts generally accurate to better than +/- 8km s-1..
"This confirms the result which has emerged from every analysis made of physical groups of galaxies to date, namely that the companion galaxies are systematically redshifted with respect to the dominant galaxy. The most accurate redshifts available in the Local Group [the group of galaxies closest to us] and in the M81 group are physical companions have significantly higher redshifts than the central galaxies. Since neither the values of the redshifts nor the physical association of these companions is in doubt, it is suggested that these companions contain a component of nonvelocity redshift [non-speed theory redshift]." —*Halton Arp and *Jack W. Sulentic, "Analysis of Groups of Galaxies with Accurate Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 291:88(1985).
*Corliss summarizes the seriousness of the entire redshift problem:
"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 effect. 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) Astronomical 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 redshifts. "—* W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (19,85), p. 148.
OTHER PHENOMENA INDICATING THE SPEED THEORY IS INCORRECT—There are other evidences that the speed theory of redshift is not correct. Three of these points will be mentioned here:
1 - Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the "younger" stars visually appear more blue than the "older" ones, which are redder. The stars with the highest redshifts are supposed to be the most distant from us, and therefore the youngest stars [most visually blue in color] of any stars in the skies. They should therefore be very blue but, instead, have the same general blue color as nearby blue stars! This fact totally violates the theory!
Clarification: The above paragraph speaks of "blues" and "reds" and may be confusing to some readers. The "blue" is referring to the visual color of the stars themselves, not the shift of their spectra toward the red or blue. According to the theory, (1) the visually bluest stars are the youngest. (2) The farthest stars ought therefore to be the youngest and extremely blue visually. (3) The farthest stars would be the very youngest because "we are looking backward in time" when we sight them; i.e., their starlight theoretically (if the redshift speed theory was correct, which it isn't) is billions of light years away—so we are seeing them as they looked billions of years ago when they were very young. (4) Stars with the most spectral redshift are supposed to be the farthest away. Therefore, (5) the spectra of the highest red-shift stars should visually appear to be the deepest blue.
In the following quotation, "z = 1" indicates a stellar velocity of 10 billion light years. That means that a star or galaxy which is "z = 1," is so heavily shifted toward the red, that it should be traveling at an impossible speed of 10 billion light years, IF the speed theory of redshift were correct. A "light year" is an astronomical unit of distance, and is equal to the distance that light travels through space in one year, which is approximately 5.878 trillion miles (nearly 6 trillion miles). A speed of 10 billion x 5.8 trillion miles per year would be immense!
"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. 188.
2 - redshift distance multiples. A strange oddity has been discovered that does not at all agree with the speed theory, but could fit into some other redshift theories, such as "tired light."
Redshift data indicate that stars tend to clump at certain distances from us! These distances are multiples of 72 kilometers per second [44.7 miles per second]! Such a situation totally defies the speed theory of redshift! Is there a possible answer? One possibility would be that starlight loses energy as it travels ("tired light" theory), and this weakening is especially shown at multiples of 72 kps.
*Corliss discusses the problem, and notes that, although *Tifft's research is well documented, other astronomers are fearful to consider or verify it. To do so would weaken the speed theory of redshift. Corliss, himself a careful scientific researcher, concludes that, if true, this fact renders impossible both an expanding universe and the formation of stars by the gravitational lumping of gas.
"The clumping of galactic redshift differences at multiples and submultiples of about 72 kilometers per second [44.7 miles per second]. This phenomenon was initially found in galactic clusters, but it appears to extend to other groupings of celestial objects.
"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 quantization has not been well-received. Supporting studies by other astronomers would generate more confidence in the reality of this phenomenon . .
"Redshift quantization is an anomaly of the highest order. The implications are profound: the expanding universe is contradicted and the formation of galaxies by gravitational attraction is denied." —*Op. cit., p. 195.
3 - Galactic Shape Factor. How can the shape of a galaxy affect its redshift? But this is so. That discovery indicates there is far more to redshifts than we had thought, and velocity has little or nothing to do with the shifts.
Spiral galaxies are disk-type, with outward rotating arms; elliptical galaxies have a distinctly different shape (a slightly squashed rounded shape). Galaxies are frequently found in clusters. Oddly enough, when ellipticals are in the same cluster with spirals (thus indicating that their distances from us are similar), the spirals will have a higher redshift, which should mean they are farther from us than the ellipticals! This, of course, cannot be true for both are together, and that fact itself strongly undermines the validity of the speed theory of redshift. In the following statements, "S galaxies" are spiral galaxies and E galaxies" are ellipticals.
"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).
"A reexamination of the galaxy redshift data in the Virgo I cluster reveals that the mean velocity of the (S) component [spiral galaxies within the galactic cluster] is significantly higher than that for the (E/L) component [elliptical galaxies within the cluster]." —*Jack W. Sulentic, "Redshifts in the Virgo Cluster, " Astrophysical Journal, 211159 (1977).
THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE THEORY—*Arp's discoveries disprove not only the speed theory of redshift, but also another theory based on it—*Edwin Hubble's "Hubble hypothesis" proposed earlier in this century, which suggests that objects outside our galaxy are receding from the earth at speeds proportional to their distance from us. That is the basis of the "expanding universe" theory. So, if Hubble's theory is incorrect, we would then have a smaller, non-expanding universe.
The "expanding universe" theory is based on the currently accepted, but very doubtful, interpretation of the redshift. That speed theory of the redshift requires that (1) all the stars in the universe are expanding outward, and (2) there are great distances between stars and galaxies. If, instead of the speed redshift theory, one or more of the three alternate explanations of the redshift were adopted, then the universe would be smaller, and it need not take so many light-years to travel across it. These three alternate explanations have been discussed above and are (1) gravitational redshift (gravity bends light, a fact predicted by *Einstein and now known to be true), (2) second-order Doppler redshift (the entire universe is rotating, and this affects the shift), and (3) energy-loss or tired light redshift (light loses energy as it travels).
PHOTONS SLOW DOWN—*Arp and his associates have found evidence that photons slow down in transit from stars to us. A photon is a single "piece" of moving starlight. The evolutionary theory assumes photons never slow down and are never shifted in their spectra toward the red by gravity. Arp has shown this assumption to be untrue.
These evolutionary theories are like a bunch of blocks stacked precariously on top of one another. The expanding universe theory is based on the speed redshift theory, which, in turn can only survive by ignoring evidence. Perched on top is the Big Bang theory, which desperately needs an expanding universe as evidence that the initial explosion occurred. Down below are little men running around feverishly, trying to find more blocks to pile on, hoping that it will help stabilize the tottering heap.
But there is evidence (by *Arp and others) that photons do slow down. Akridge, a careful scientist, looks at the photon:
"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.
Then Akridge explains a related problem:
"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.  In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times.
"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 not 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 parts 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.
Among astronomers it is well-known that (1) there is considerable guesswork in determining actual distances by means of the redshift, and (2) there are other possible explanations for it. Actually, if the speed theory were correct, it would mean the universe is enormously large, with galaxies as much as 15 billion light years away from us!
ONLY ONE STELLAR DISTANCE MEASUREMENT IS RELIABLE—Distances to faraway stars, galaxies, and quasars are important in analyzing aspects of the Big Bang and other stellar theories. Yet, of the several techniques used by astronomers to measure star distances, there is only one reliable method; all of the other methods are either approximations or theoretical guesses. This is the parallax method, which can only be used on those stars which are nearest to us. It is accurate to within 10 percent. (Admittedly, even a 10 percent margin of error is a lot.)
The parallax method was first established in 1838 by Bessel. Since then, the distances to approximately 6,000 of the closest stars have been determined. The closest of these is Alpha Centauri which is only 4.3 light years away. Interestingly enough, the bright summer star, Vega, is only 27 light years distant.
There is no other accurate method of determining stellar distances, although several methods are employed for this purpose.
45) QUASARS—Quasars may hold the key to an understanding of the redshift. These are mysterious sources of distant light. Since their discovery in 1962, hundreds of them have been located. No one knows what they are, yet quasars show an astoundingly large redshift in their light. In accord with the current theory` of redshift, quasars are called the most distant objects in the universe.
But quasars raise a serious objection to the usual redshift theory: If they are so far away, how can their light even be seen!Because of this brightness problem, a number of astronomers are giving up the current redshift theory and saying that quasars probably are in our own galaxy.
VIOLATES INVERSE-SQUARE LAW—A basic law of optical physics is violated by evolutionary theory in regard to quasars. Using the speed theory of redshift as the basis for their efforts, scientists declare that there are quasars located at extreme distances—yet their visible light can be seen through optical telescopes! This could not possibly occur, for it would be a violation of the inverse-square law.
"Inverse-square law: the fact that, under perfectly transparent conditions, an object's brightness is inversely proportional to the square of its distance. A star at two light years is four times dimmer than it would be at one." —*Time-Life, Stars (1988), p. 137.
Speed and distance is not the answer to the redshift problem. In fact, we find that the current theory produces far more problems than it solves. Here is the story of the quasars:
16 PERCENT—In 1962, a mysterious object was found with radio-telescopes. Named 3C273, it had a spectrum that was unintelligible. (Its name comes from the fact that in a three-volume 1959 star catalogue published by Cambridge University, this star is number 273 in the third volume.) This peculiar object radiated most strongly in the far blue and ultraviolet fringes of the visible spectrum. Stranger still, it had only the slightest trace of hydrogen. Then, on February 5, 1963, a researcher, *Jesse Schmidt, was sitting in his office studying the puzzling. spectrum of 3C273, —when he recognized what the problem was: It had a radically large redshift of 16 percent! This meant that, if the current redshift theory is true (that the amount of shift is the speed with which the object is traveling away from us), this strange object was moving away from our planet at 16 percent of the speed of light, placing it at a massive distance of about 3 billion light years from earth!
But such a fact would present a most terrible problem to the astronomers: Given its distance, the small body would have had to be about a hundred times brighter than any other luminous or radio object in the sky, in order to be seen! Yes, a hundred times brighter—each of those 16 percent redshift quasars!
These unusual objects came to be called "quasars," meaning "quasi-stellar radio source;" a name indicating that it is a mystery. A quasar, then, is a "what is it?" a star, a galaxy, or what? Because of its theoretically massive distance and luminosity, the experts did not know how to classify it. At the present time 4,000 quasars have been identified. That is a lot of quasars.
200-300 PERCENT—Within two years after Schmidt broke the spectroscopic code of 3C273, quasars with redshifts of 200 and 300 percent were being announced! This would equal distances up to 12 billion light years, and recession speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light! This was shattering news for the speed (Doppler) theory of the redshift.
Upon learning this, a surprising number of astronomers publicly gave up confidence in the current redshift theory. They said it would be impossible for any object to be so far away, be detected by our radio-telescopes, and afterward matched to images photographed by visual telescopes.
But, trying to hold onto the speed theory of the redshift, some astronomers said that quasars were being spewed out by our own Milky Way and other nearby galaxies. Yet this could not be, for no one had ever seen a blue-shifted quasar—one being hurled in our direction.
350-400 PERCENT—Since that time, the situation has become even worse: In 1973 a quasar was discovered with a redshift of 350 percent! Then, in 1986, the National Optical Astronomy Observatories in Tucson, Arizona, began using a new laser-scanning device to isolate ultra-high redshift quasars on photographic plates. Since then, NOAO has reported quasars with redshifts of more than 400 percent! If the current redshift theory were correct, those quasars would be 15 billion light-years away, and traveling outward at impossibly high speeds.
*Abel, a leader in the field of astronomical cataloguing, says there is no theoretical form of matter which could possibly fit the requirements of such great distances, high luminosity, and immense velocities.
"It is difficult, even theoretically, to construct a configuration of matter that fits the general characteristics of a QSS [quasar] and has so large a gravitational redshift." —*George Abell, Exploration of the Universe (1973), p. 409.
Here is a brief sketch of the discovery of these "4 redshifts" in quasars. (In scientific terminology, that stands for spectra shifted more than 400 percent toward the red):
"By the early 1980s, only one or two had been seen beyond a redshift of 3. There seemed to be a redshift limit beyond which quasars could not be seen . .
"Less than five years later, however, Pat Osmer would be among a host of observers vying for the distance record in the discovery of quasars. Between August 1986 and November 1989, ten quasars were found with redshifts greater than 4. Appropriately, Maarten Schmidt [discoverer of the first one] is a member of the team that has spotted half of them, including the most distant object ever seen—a quasar at redshift 4.73 [almost 500 percent!). Discovered in late 1989, quasar PC 1158+4635 is receding at a rate equivalent to a distance of nearly 14 billion light years.
" 'If the age of the universe is 15 billion years [as predicted by the Big Bang theorists], this quasar was emitting light just over 1 billion years after the Big Bang,' says Donald Schneider of Princeton, a co-discoverer with Schmidt and fellow astronomer James Gun, 'which places some serious constraints on theories of galaxy formation.' Suddenly, the theorists seemed to be running out of time for the standard schedule of events that were supposed to have led to the creation of galaxies. If those most distant quasars had somehow formed at an accelerated rate, they showed no sign of such behavior. As Schmidt put it, One of the interesting things about our redshift 4.73 quasar is how normal it is. Except for its great distance, it shows no significant differences from other quasars.' Debate continues as to the implications of these long-distance beacons... [and] perhaps, lend support to Arp's challenge." —*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 68-69.
Astronomers are beginning to realize that their hypothesis that redshifts are caused by stars running away from us at high speed—is on very shaky ground. Ettari explains the problem quite well:
"Since galactic distances are not obtainable [Since astronomers only measure distances to galaxies by the speed theory of redshift, and refuse to consider other possibilities], there is no way of knowing if the redshift in their spectra might not have some gravitational component. Moreover, there is also no way to forge a redshift/distance measurement scale for galaxies since there are no known mass/luminosity or mass/distance relationships with which to calibrate it. Thus, we see that little is actually known about redshifts and their relationship to the mass or distance of a galaxy or quasar. Therefore, the contention that these are Doppler effects remains unprovable. "—Vincent A. Ettari, "Critical Thoughts and Conjectures Concerning the Doppler Effect and the Concept of an Expanding Universe-Part 1 " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988, p. 141-142.
More than anything else, quasars have made a laughing-stock of the current redshift theory, which in turn is supposed to be a key evidence that the Big Bang took place. About all the astronomers can do is to lamely declare that these quasars are so bright because each one may be equal in size to "100 million stars," and they have such a radical redshift because the quasars are shooting away from us at fantastically high speeds.
Any explanation will do, as long as it keeps the tottering evolutionary theories of stellar origins from failing in a heap.
GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFTS—This is one of the three alternate causes of the redshift in starlight, which we earlier discussed. It was none other than *Albert Einstein who first suggested that redshifts in starlight were only the result of gravitational attraction by stellar masses they pass near.
"An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated. "—*Albert Einstein, Relativity: the Special and General Theory (1961 edition), pp. 130-131.
As the light travels it would be pulled by gravitational fields of neighboring stars and galaxies, and would thus be skewed slightly toward the red end of the spectrum.
"A strong gravitational field at the source of light will cause a redshift." —* "A Quasar that's Far Away" in Science News, 110 (1976), p. 54.
"Some astronomers at once noted that the bigger the galaxy, [the larger the gravitational field,] the bigger the redshift, and the greater the speed. "—*R.A. Gallant, The Nature of the Universe (1966), p. 58.
However, the entire theory of explosion cosmology (via a Big Bang, oscillating universe, etc.) is partly dependent on a Doppler-effect (speed theory) redshift. So it is being doggedly adhered to, in spite of the fact that the evidence is mounting that such a theory is utterly impossible.
EIGHT TIMES FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT—Three quasars have been found that which, according to the speed theory of redshift, are moving FASTER than the speed of light!
"An object that goes faster than light is about as welcome to physical scientists as a real live ghost would be to the American Humanist Association. Yet there are at least three quasars that are flying away from each other at speeds greater than that of light. [!] The response of most astronomers is that it is just an appearance and must somehow be explained away. The most popular explanations to date seem a bit contrived, however . . the faster-than-light phenomena include apparent velocities up to 8c." —*"Computer enhanced Photographs of Galaxies, " in Sky and Telescope 53 (1977), p. 1702. [''C" is the "Hubble constant"—the speed of light; "8c" would be a speed eight times faster than the speed of light.]
That is eight times faster than the speed of light! If the speed theory of redshift be true, then some of these quasars are traveling eight times faster than light! Astronomers know this is an impossibility, yet their speed theory of redshift requires it. But they dare not abandon that concept, for it would ruin their Big Bang theory. As of the latter part of 1990, 30 (thirty) of these "faster-than-light" quasars have been found.
"Some of this [quasar]material is extremely puzzling to astronomers, because it appears to be moving faster than light (According to Relativity Theory, light is the fastest-moving stuff in the universe. Thus the faster-than-light-quasars—or super-luminary quasars—shouldn't exist. But they do.
"It is thought that there is some illusion with these bizarre objects. . It may be an illusion, but its exact nature isn't yet understood.
"There are 30 or so known super-luminary quasars."—*Star Date radio broadcast, Tuesday, November 6, 1990.
In a desperate attempt to save their special theory of redshift, astronomers are even willing to change the speed of light so it will conform to the super-fast quasars! The speed of light, based on the "Hubble constant," has been carefully worked out, checked and double-checked for many years now. The "Hubble constant" is a key mathematical factor in computing the speed of light. Ettari expresses his shock that astronomers would be willing to abandon a basic mathematical constant in order to salvage the dreamy explosion theory of origins.
"How can a branch of science stand when its most fundamental constant, the Hubble constant, is constantly being changed? The admission of the above article is that we have no idea as to the true relationships between redshift and velocity or distance, and that the computed distances and speeds are totally unreliable.
"Their speeds could be halved or doubled depending on the prevailing opinion as to what the value of the Hubble 'constant' is. Moreover, an increase of 100 percent in the Hubble constant would decrease the computed age of the universe by 50 percent. If objects with still higher redshifts are found, the age of the universe could be decreased (to 10,000 years, perhaps?)." —Vincent A. Ettari, "Critical Thoughts and Conjectures Concerning the Doppler Effect and the Concept of an Expanding Universe-Part 1 " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988, p. 145 (italics ours).
LIGHT, MATTER, AND GRAVITY—Some may suggest that light and matter could not possibly have any effect on one another, and that evolutionists are right in declaring that the redshift in light from distant places is caused not by matter drag, but solely by movement of the stars away from us. Yet it is a known fact that gravity from the sun actually bends light rays from stars coming toward us. Other relationships have been noted above. In addition consider this:
Does matter apply gravitational pull on light—as if it too were matter? Well, what about the fact that it is now known that light applies weight on matter—as though light were matter!
"If a set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is kept dark, and light is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will sink slowly. Light has 'weight.' The pressure of light on the Earth's surface is calculated as two pounds per square mile." —*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 330.
When the near-sighted Hubble space telescope was sent up in 1990, such things as solar wind had already been accounted for in advance, But within a few days scientists found they could not keep the telescope still—for the weight of sunlight touching its vanes was slowly moving it!
Because light has weight, it can be affected by gravity. Therefore the gravitational theory of redshift would definitely be applicable.
GETTING RID OF THE OPPOSITION—The controversy has grown intense.
On one side are the "Big Bangers" fighting to hold onto their theory. In order to do so, they cling tightly to (1) their background radiation explanation, which does not agree with a number of facts, and (2) to their speed theory explanation of the redshift of starlight, which in turn requires postulating fantastic theories about an exploding universe, 14 billion light-year distant quasars emitting light so bright we can record them in our telescopes, and horrible black holes. None of those three theories would be necessary if the speed theory of redshift was discarded.
On the other side are competent astronomers, led by *Halton C. Arp, who have found many instances in which the speed theory could not possibly apply. Arp even compiled a large atlas containing many of them!
In desperation, the evolutionists arranged that Arp be relieved of his employment, so that he could no longer use the two largest U.S.-based visual telescopes: Mount Wilson and Mount Palomar.
"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 expanding universe—this hypothesis touched off what has 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 redshifts of these quasars were 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 each 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.
"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.
QUASAR SUMMARY—Hereare several points from this section In regard to the quasar question, as it relates to the red-shift:
1- A theory about background radiation and the speed theory of red-shift is all the evolutionists have to support their Big Bang theory. Yet the existence of quasars is a powerful objection to their red-shift theory. Because the spectra of quasars are shifted so dramatically Into the red, if the speed theory were correct, they would have to be located vast distances from us—billions of miles beyond any other objects in the sky. Yet their visible light can still be seen in optical telescopes, as though most of them were not much farther away than stars in Andromeda, the closest galaxy to us!
2 - NOAO (National Optical Astronomy Observatories In Tucson, AZ) has reported sighting quasars with red-shifts of more than 400 percent! Such quasars would, according to the speed theory, be 15 billion light-years distant, and traveling outward at impossibly high speeds! One quasar has a red-shift of 4.73 (473 percent shift; its name is PC 1158 + 4635), and appears to be a very normal sighted stellar object.
3 - Three quasars have been found which, according to the speed theory of red-shift, are moving faster than the speed of light!
4 - In a desperate effort to save their speed theory, theorists want to change the "Hubble constant." That is the speed of light! They want to change the speed of light in order to salvage their speed theory, in turn to save their expanding universe and Big Bang theories. All scientific facts are to be accepted, denied, or changed in accordance with the effect they will have on evolutionary theories.
5 -*Albert Einstein was the first to suggest that starlight was gravitationally affected by passing stars. That would result in its spectrum being skewed toward the red end. Yet evolutionists adamantly deny any possibility of a causative agent for the red-shift other than speed.
6 - A strong gravitational field at the source of the starlight will initially skew it toward the red. It has been noted that the bigger the galaxy, the larger the red-shift.
7 - No one has ever seen a blue-shifted stellar light spectrum. This is another indication that gravity or tired light is responsible for the slowing of the starlight. If the speed theory alone was correct, then there ought to be a star out there somewhere which is moving toward us!
8 - It is a known fact that gravity from our own sun bends light rays from stars coming toward us.
9 - Not only does matter apply gravity to light, but another evidence in favor of the gravitational theory of red-shift is the fact that light applies weight to matter. Light falling on balanced vanes will turn them.
 - CONCLUSION
THREE SPECIAL POINTS—if the Big Bang theory were true, it should predict four things:  There should be no stars or galaxies at all! Physical laws would indicate that the gas from the Big Bang would flow evenly outward and never form any spherical bodies of any kind.  If it were possible for them to have formed out of the outwardly-moving gaseous wind, the stars would only be found at the outer edges of the universe, not evenly scattered throughout it.  Large amounts of antimatter should strike the earth continually, and from only one direction—the direction where the Big Bang explosion occurred.  Background radiation should enter our atmosphere continually, and from that same single direction.  Stars in the universe should be moving outward from the original point where the Big Bang explosion took place.
For additional information see the appendix, "1- Scientists Oppose the Explosion Theory," at the end of this chapter. You will there find statements by scientists which oppose the theories of the Big Bang, and stellar and planetary evolution.
The Big Bang theory is presented to the public as though all science stood behind it, when in reality confusion, contradictions, and discord reigns among scientists in regard to it. The same is true for the other cosmologies, or theories of the origin of matter and stars.
In addition to the most popular theory of the origin of the universe, the Big Bang, there are three other primary evolutionary theories of how everything began.
3 - THE STEADY STATE UNIVERSE THEORY
ERRORS IN THE THEORY—Alternate theories to a Big Bang origin of the universe, include the "steady-state" cosmology. This idea (also called the "continuous creation" theory) was initiated and first publicized by *Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, in 1948. It teaches that matter never had a beginning. According to the concept, in the space between galaxies, new matter is said to be quietly but continually appearing out of nothing! It just pops into existence in the form of hydrogen! As simple as that.
In 1948, *Fred Hoyle, working with *Hermann Bondi and *Thomas Gold, proposed the "steady state universe" as an alternative to the Big Bang, This theory tries to unite the idea of a eternally continuing universe with continually self-creating matter, with the red-shift-required expanding universe theory,
"At the forefront of the Steady State theorists was a brash young Cambridge University astronomer and mathematician named Fred Hoyle. Hoyle, barely into his thirties at the time, did not as a rule shy away from absolute statements. The general properties of the universe remain constant, he maintained; it has always been, and will always be, very much as it is now. To account for the expansion discerned by Hubble, the Steady State theory offered a rather magical solution. As the galaxies recede from each other, new matter, in the form of hydrogen atoms, is created in the space between them; ultimately, this matter coalesces into new galaxies." *Peter Pocock and, *Pat Daniels, Galaxies, p. 114 [italics ours].
Just as *George Gamow, the great promoter of the Big Bang theory, later became a science fiction writer, so * Fred Hoyle, after pushing the steady state universe theory for a time, went into science fiction writing also. This would be understandable; since both theories themselves are nothing more than science fiction.
"Hoyle demonstrated a real genius for publicity. He explained his ideas on a widely-heard radio series and then published an enormously popular book, The Nature of the Universe, in 1950. His efforts won wide acceptance for the theory among the general public, if not among astronomers, who generally held to the Big Bang." —*Op. cit., p. 115.
In the early 1960s, Hoyle turned his attention to other enterprises, including the writing of a series of popular science-fiction novels.
According to Hoyle's theory, galaxies are continually disappearing while new ones are appearing, and matter is continually inventing itself out of nothing. At the same time, other matter—entire constellations—are disappearing. All this is contrary to scientific observation and analysis, yet Hoyle called his theory a "law" of nature:
"In the case of a continuous origin of matter on the other hand, the creation must obey a definite law, a law that has just the same sort of logical status as the laws of gravitation, of nuclear physics, of electricity and magnetism." —*Fred Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy (1955), pp. 317318.
The idea was so riddled with flaws that years later Hoyle, himself, finally gave up the theory, and in a public statement said the evidence to the contrary was too great: the universe had to be created!
But unfortunately, many of his followers did not change views when he did. The Steady State cosmology is held by many scientists today, although when background radiation was discovered, many jumped back on the Big Bang bandwagon. But they did so in spite of the fact that background radiation turned out to be multidirectional, and thus no evidence of an earlier Big Bang.
Another British scientist, made this comment about Hoyle's theory:
"So far as I can judge, the authors of this new cosmology are primarily concerned about the great difficulty that must face all [cosmological theory] systems that contemplate a changing universe—namely, how can we conceive it to have begun? They are not content to leave this question unanswered until further knowledge comes; all problems must be solved now. It seems to them better to suppose that there was no beginning and will be no ending to the material universe, and therefore, tacitly assuming that the universe must conform to their tastes, they declare that this must have been the case. "—*Herbert Dingle, "Science and Modern Cosmology," in Science, October 1, 1954, p. 519.
* Hoyle's Steady State theory, like the other cosmologies (Big Bang, Oscillating Universe, etc.), is pure imagination.
"We are told that matter is being continually created, but in such a way that the process is imperceptible—that is, the statement cannot be disproved. When we ask why we should believe this, the answer is that the "perfect cosmological principle" requires it. And when we ask why we should accept this principle, the answer is that the fundamental axiom of science requires it. This we have seen to be false, and the only other answer that one can gather is that the principle must be true because it seems fitting to the people who assert it. With all respect, I find this inadequate." —*Herbert Dingle, "Science and Modern Cosmology," Science, October 1, 1954, p. 515.
"Contrary to popular belief, not a single star, planet, or galaxy has ever been seen forming spontaneously out of cosmic debris. Such imaginary evolutionary processes do not even work on paper!" —George Mulfinger, "Degeneration Processes in the Cosmos," Bible-Science Newsletter, September 15, 1968.
You may recall two earlier facts discussed in this chapter: (1) The *Rubin discovery that gas in-between the island universes is composed—not of pure hydrogen as required by the Big Bang theory, —but also of a variety of heavy elements. (2) The fact that hydrogen cannot change into the heavy elements because of a nuclear gap at 5 and 8, and it can only change into helium in the nuclear heat within stars. Those two facts, taken together, disprove *Hoyle's steady state universe theory, which teaches that all the gas in extra-galactic space could only be hydrogen or helium; hydrogen coming into existence out of nothing, and some helium, later formed from the hydrogen.
In 1965, *Fred Hoyle himself abandoned the steady state theory. He had been the principle person urging it for years, but on September 6, 1965, at a meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science, Hoyle flat-out stated that there were such serious problems with the theory that he was giving it up. Here are five of the reasons he gave for abandoning it:
1 -Radio astronomy counts by *Martin Ryle and his associates indicate a density of radio sources too dense to be compatible with the steady-state theory.
2 - Red-shift measurements of 15 quasars indicate that the universe previously was denser than at present, a possibility not agreeable with the theory.
3 - A background microwave radiation [wavelength] of 7 cm (2.76 inches) has been picked up by *Penzias and *Wilson at Bell Lab. This amount disagrees with both the Big Bang and steady state theories.
4 - Helium-to-hydrogen ratios for stars and gaseous nebulas within our own galaxy have been measured, and there is far too much helium content. This fact flies in the face both of Big Bang and steady state theorizations. Such high helium ratios cannot be accounted for by thermonuclear production of helium from hydrogen.
5 - The structure of elliptical galaxies is more satisfactorily explained as a result of expansion from a highly dense state, than by any condensation process suggested by the Big Bang or steady state theories.
In view of these findings, Fred Hoyle announced he was abandoning the steady state theory. Elsewhere in this book, you will find many other research findings and quotations by *Fred Hoyle dealing with the primitive environment, DNA, protein, natural selection, mutations, and a number of other crucial topics, such are archaeopteryx. When working down-to-earth, he has been a much more careful researcher than when his head is up in the stars.
"The static (steady] state, universe concept is now out of favor for several good reasons, one being that no matter how evolutionist cosmologists may twist and turn, there is no getting past the second law of thermodynamics—if the universe were of infinite age then it would have run down infinitely long ago.
"Its main proponent, Fred Hoyle long ago abandoned the idea and he expresses much cynicism about the barren state of cosmology today. Steidl points out that it is no wonder that mechanistic theories of the origin and structure of the universe do not work because non-theistic evolutionist astronomers dogmatically rule out the most important element before they start: the possibility of a Creator Supreme Being." —A. W. Mehlert, book review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1987, p. 24.
This imaginative theory is just that: a product of imagination. It has never been observed to happen and there is no evidence that it occurs.
4 - THE OSCILLATING UNIVERSE THEORY
ERRORS IN THE THEORY—This theory says that when the universe finally runs down, another Big Bang will start it going again.
Also called "eternal oscillations," this concept was developed and promoted by *George Gamow, and is an extension of the Big Bang theory. It teaches that after each Big Bang outward explosion and formation of stars and planets, at a later time all matter contracts into a single tiny point, which then explodes again in another Big Bang. The main difference is that the initial explosion (Big Bang) is supposed to have been of nothing erupting into matter; the later ones are theorized to be produced by matter packed into a point, and then exploding back into matter again.
Although not able to tell you how long ago your house was built, Gamow can tell you that 80 billion years after the last Big Bang another explosion will occur.
"In one [theory, the Big Bang], the universe is created, somehow, ten or twenty billion years ago and expands forever, the galaxies mutually receding until the last one disappears over our cosmic horizon. . In the other, the oscillating universe, the Cosmos has no beginning and no end, and we are in the midst of an infinite cycle of cosmic deaths and rebirths." —*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), p. 259.
Knowledgeable scientists do not really know how the first Big Bang could have occurred, and they have no idea how another could occur later, the second time with matter to begin with. Frankly, we have here one desperate theory piled onto another.
"Such speculation is sometimes referred to as the oscillating theory of the universe, but it is not really a theory, for we know of no mechanism that can produce another big bang. "—*George Abell, Exploration of the Universe (1982), p. 648.
As Pitman explains, it is an ongoing struggle to work out these strange theories:
"(a) The universe always existed. (b) The universe sprang into existence when, at the beginning of time, nothing nowhere for no reason exploded (Big Bang theory). Attempts have been made to reconcile (a) and (b); for example, postulating an 'oscillating universe' which disappears in a 'black hole' and reappears as a 'white hole.' "—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 229. (It has been theorized that a matter-absorbing black hole might eventually "turn itself inside out" and produce a "white hole" belching out matter.)
After pushing the Big Bang, *George Gamow, the physicist and science-fiction writer, led out in developing it into the "oscillating universe" theory. According to this idea, the universe alternates between expansion and contraction, and the last one was merely the most recent Big Bang. The present expansion will be followed by a contraction. The galaxies will rush in and stop at a common point, collide, and begin a new Big Bang.
That point of collision, with good science fiction magic, will be about the size of an atom, and within it will be all the stars and galaxies of the universe! Then it is supposed to explode. Every 80 billion years a new explosion cycle is supposed to begin.
Gamow, with his convincing details about something he really knows nothing about, explains how the last Big Bang occurred:
"Thus we conclude that our universe has existed for an eternity of time, that until about five billion years ago it was collapsing uniformly from a state of infinite rarefaction; that five billion year; ago it arrived at a state of maximum compression in which the density of all its matter may have been as great as that of the particles packed in the nucleus of an atom (i.e., 100 million million times the density of water), and that the universe is now on the rebound, dispersing irreversibly toward a state of infinite rarefaction." —George Gamow, "Modern Cosmology, " in Scientific American editors, The New Astronomy (1955), p. 23.
On the next page, Gamow admitted that the preconceived objective of his theory was an imaginative attempt to dovetail his theory into that of the Big Bang. He said he wanted to come up with an eternal universe, tie it to a Big Bang, and then date it at 5 billion years to agree with the overall scheduling of the Big Bang theory.
1 - Running out of hydrogen. —Robert Jastrow, founder and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and astronomy professor at Columbia University, explained the impossibility of the theory by noting that when hydrogen is used up, there is no way it can be recycled. When the hydrogen is gone, the universe Is dead. There are no repetitive cycles of matter renewing itself.
"This beautiful theory allows the Universe to go on forever in a timeless cycle of death and rebirth, but for one disturbing fact. Fresh hydrogen is the essential ingredient in the plan; it is the main source of the energy by which stars shine, and it is also the source of all the other elements in the Universe. The moment a star is born it begins to consume some of the hydrogen in the Universe, and continues to use up hydrogen until it dies. Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be restored to is original state. Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in the stars, the supply of this element in the Universe grows smaller." *Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978), p. 109.
All of the weaknesses of the Big Bang theory apply to the eternal oscillations theory of universal origins, which is but an extension of it.
Once again we have the same problems we had with the Big Bang and steady state universe—. (1) matter out of nothing, (2) violations of natural law, and (3) accidental origins of stars, planets, moons, and the complicated inter-connected orbital systems to be seen throughout the universe.
2 - Stop and reverse. But added to this is the peculiar point that Gamow says the universe is infinite and all matter within it is expanding, and then, every so many billion years, inexplicably reverses its direction and contracts! Why would matter that is supposedly expanding infinitely outward toward infinity—stop and change directions?
If matter from the Big Bang has been expanding outward for 20 billion years, why should it eventually stop, reverse gears, and go back inward again? What would draw it inward, since it is all moving outward at great velocity? Add to this the fact that Gamow says it is expanding outward in an "infinite universe," so it has no barrier to slow or stop it. The center of gravity would by that time be on the perimeters of the universe, not at its center!
3 - Leaving its gravitational field. *Gamow says the original Big Bang is expanding outward "in an infinite universe." What then would slow, stop, and reverse it? The center of gravity would be in the outer perimeters of the universe. Why would matter want to reverse and move back away from the gravitational field?
4 - Not enough matter. The only way the universe could collapse inward would be if there were ten times as much matter in the universe as there now is. Research studies have shown that there simply is not enough matter in the universe to produce such an inward collapse.
Jastrow mentions this as another reason why the oscillating universe theory cannot be true:
"The density of matter . . is more than ten times too small to bring the expansion of the Universe to a halt." —Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978), pp. 121-122.
Mathematical calculations indicate—there is not enough matter in the universe to cause it to cease any possible outward expansion, and begin pushing inward.
5 - Getting to the point.After reversing direction and rushing inward, all stars and galaxies are then supposed to EXACTLY collide—and then melt into a single miniature point! What a ridiculous concept. Aim a hundred rifles inward to a common center; will they all hit one another, stop when they do it, and form a single atom smaller than one of them? Why would inward-imploding matter go to a single point and stop there? It would simply move on out past that point.
If all that enormous quantity of stellar material, stretching as it does across the vast reaches of space, were hurled toward a central area, some of it would collide and break into particles and rebound outward. Other objects would fly past each other and continue on into space.. None of it would glue itself together, and then shrink in size (!) to the size of an atom!
It would NOT implode to a single atomic dot! That is fiction writing in the extreme. Does science fiction writing unfit men for intelligent analysis of straight-forward reality?
5 - THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE THEORY
ERRORS IN THE THEORY—As soon as one theory weakens, another is put on the drawing board. The latest is the "inflationary universe" theory.
In a desperate attempt to cling to a non creationist position on the origin of matter, this new idea teaches that the universe (Including all space and time) began as a single Infinitesimal particle! No one has yet figured out where that first particle came from, or how all time and space happened to get jammed into it. But, at any rate, it first decided to swell to a grapefruit size object, paused there for a time, and then blew up. Prior to reaching its first five inches [12.7 cm] in diameter, it was quite cold and in its "cold big whoosh" stage. After achieving 5 inches in size, it—with all time and space capsuled within it, then entered the "hot big bang" stage—and blew up, traveling outward, carrying all space, time, and matter with it as it went. Somewhere in the process, matter and energy congealed into reality. The scientists are still working out the details on how that happened.
Where did that first particle come from? No one knows. Two of the originators of the "inflationary universe" theory are now toying with the idea that the first "infinitesimal particle" initially expanded itself out of an ever-smaller point—which itself just appeared out of nothing.
"It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing." —*Allan H. Guth and *Paul J. Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe, " in Scientific American, May 1984, p. 128.
The flaws In the Big Bang apply to this theory, plus the problem that the initial origin of matter is not explained.
For additional information, see the quotation supplement, "4 - Problems for Origin of Matter and Origin of Universe Theories, " at the end of this chapter.
6 - CONCLUSION
WORTHLESS THEORIES—These peculiar theories of the origin of the universe really beg the question. They do not really explain origins, much less processes and results. They just provide a fairy tale to capture and hold the attention of people who would otherwise be searching for the truth.
Either separately or combined, the Big Bang and oscillating universe theories do not explain how a supposedly super-dense collection of either vacuum or matter could gather together. They do not explain how nothing can pack itself together. The steady-state theory claims that throughout the universe, empty space is continually changing into hydrogen. But there is no evidence that this is occurring.
*Isaac Asimov, one of the world's leading evolutionary science writers of our century, nicely sums up the kind of confusing vagaries that he and his fellow evolutionists prefer in regard to the origin of the universe:
"Where did the substance of the universe come from?. . If 0- + 1 + (-1), then something which is 0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combine once more and vanish. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it." —*Isaac Asimov, "What is Beyond the Universe?" in Science Digest, April 1970, p. 69.
According to evolutionary theory, "Between nothing and nothing" is what life is all about.
None of us is as close to the problems Involved here as is * Fred Hoyle, one of the leading astronomers of our time, and he has already abandoned the Big Bang theory.
Weisskopf, another influential astronomer puts it this way:
"No existing view of the development of the cosmos is completely satisfactory, and this includes the standard model [the Big Bang], which leads to certain fundamental questions and problems."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe, " in American Scientist, October 1983, p. 474.
"Dietrick Thompson comments:
"Coincidence of prediction and observation made the big bang seem the most plausible of cosmological theories. From plausibility it became predominant and then virtually an orthodoxy . . But now its decade of total dominance may be starting to close"—*Dietrick V. Thomsen, "Cosmology Against the Grain, "in Science News, August 26, 1978, p. 138.
Along with the Big Bang, many astronomers are now abandoning the oscillating universe theory.
"We now appreciate that, because of the huge entropy generated in our universe, far from oscillating, a closed universe can only go through one cycle of expansion or contraction." —*S.A. Bludman, "Thermodynamics and the End of the Closed Universe, " in Nature, March 22, 1984, p. 322.
VIOLATES NATURAL LAW—These theories about the origin of matter and stars do not explain processes; they only propose theories.
They do not present observed or observable facts; they only provide pat answers. There is no doubt but that science fiction is a wonderful solver of difficulties; it simply ignores them.
For example, how did the laws of nature come into existence? Natural law is inexorable, yet it governs matter and energy while standing apart from both. Evolutionists assume that natural laws appeared out of nothing by chance, as with everything else. But nothing in the universe is haphazard; everything has a purpose; everything was planned. And everything required high-level intelligence and power to produce.
The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are repeatedly violated by the very essence of these theories. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is the basis for * Bludman's objection, quoted above, will be discussed later in chapter 25, The Laws of Nature.
It may seem unbelievable, after having read in this chapter about a hundred reasons why the Big Bang theory is wrong, —but this one point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is more powerful than nearly all other reasons—why ALL theories of matter and stellar origins and evolution are totally incorrect and impossible. Chaos can never change itself randomly into cosmos; disorganized matter can never transform itself by accident into the highly organized elements with their whirling atomic particles, or into stars circling one another with thoroughly precision and balanced orbits. And it can never change mud and seawater Into plants and animals.
Entire books have been written on the inviolability of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In this present set of books, it fills an entire chapter. For that reason we will not discuss it in detail here.
This one law of physics—all by itself—solidly refutes the possibility of any and all evolution of matter, stars, or living species.
For additional information, see the quotation supplement, " 2 - The Problem of Entropy, " at the end of this chapter.
THE SORRY STATE UNIVERSE—It is not easy to live day by day with the desolation that evolutionists face as they view the universe. Two evolutionary scientists speak frankly to the point:
"There is a deep compulsion to believe that the entire universe, including all the apparently concrete matter that assails our senses, is in reality only a frolic of convoluted nothingness, that in the end of the world will turn out to be a sculpture of pure emptiness, a self-organized void." —*Paul Davies, Superforce (1984).
"It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible (via the big bang), the more it also seems pointless." —*Steve Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (1977).
"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy." —*Steve Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (1977).
THREE SCIENTISTS SUMMARIZE—One scientist carefully summarizes the confusion of it all, and crowds it into one little sentence:
"Our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness."—*Edward P. Tryon, "What Made the World?" in New Scientist, March 8, 1984, p. 16.
Another scientist, a leading astronomer who spent his time studying the stars instead of speculative writings, said this:
"A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion which may be summed up . . in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician."—Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, p.140.
Another astronomer, writing more recently, put it this way:
"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it... One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."—*Scientific American, May 1963, p. 53.
THE ORIGIN OF MATTER
SCIENTISTS OPPOSE THE EXPLOSION THEORY
We have examined specific aspects of the Big Bang theory. Now we should let the scientists speak for themselves. What do they have to say about the explosion theory of universal origin? Here are the statements of a number of prominent astronomers:
*Sagan defends the Big Bang as originating from a "cosmic egg."
"Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened—the Big Bang, the event that began our universe . . That it happened is reasonably clear. All the matter and energy now in the universe was concentrated at extremely high density—a kind of cosmic egg . . The entire universe, matter and energy they fill, occupied a very small volume. —*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), p. 246.
*Jastrow informs us that all the evidence which would prove that the Big Bang had ever occurred—was destroyed in the initial explosion! (Fortunately, we have enough other information that we can clearly disprove the theory anyway.)
"All the evidence needed for a scientific study of the cause of the great explosion was melted down and destroyed . . [in] the searing heat of that first moment." —*Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978), p. 12.
*Krauskopf questions the possibility of how matter could magically appear out of such a primeval explosion:
"A number of scientists are unhappy with the big bang theory . . For one thing, it leaves unanswered the questions that always arise when a precise date is given for the creation of the universe. Where did the matter come from in the first place?"— *A. Krauskopf and *A. Beiser, The Physical Universe (1973), p. 645.
*Narlikar wrote an entire article in a scientific journal questioning this strange theory. Here are some of his opening words:
"Some cosmologists, albeit a minority, do sometimes wonder whether the confidence so often claimed in the big bang picture is justified by our observational knowledge. In this article I will air a few of these misgivings. "—"Jayant Narlikar, "Was There a Big Bang?" in New Scientist, July 2, 1981, p. 19.
"Burbidge concludes his article against the Big Bang in this way:
"The evidence in favor of a big bang cosmology is much less definite than is widely realized . . This concludes my discussion of direct observational evidence bearing on whether or not the universe is evolving and began in a dense state. I believe that if one attempts to evaluate this evidence objectively there is still no really conclusive evidence in favor of such a universe." —*G. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" in Nature 233 (1971), pp. 36, 39.
*Trefil summarizes what he sees as four of the most basic problems with the Big Bang theory:
"There are four fundamental problems associated with our picture of the Big Bang. Three of these are problems of the first kind [basic disagreements], and a failure to resolve them would have to be taken as evidence of a major weakness in our understanding. These problems are (1 ) why there is so little antimatter in the universe, (2) how the galaxies could have formed in the time allotted for this process, and (3) why the universe is isotropic [a universe the same physically in all directions]. In addition, there is one problem of the second kind that is traditionally associated with the three problems of the first kind: why the mass of the universe is so close to the critical value required to close the universe." —*J. Trefil, The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics (1983), p. 48.
*Alfven considers the success of the theory in capturing the minds of so many scientists as the result of a cover-up operation:
"There has been remarkably little discussion of whether the basic big bang hypothesis is correct or not . . The large body of observations which are not in agreement with it are either accounted for by numerous ad hoc hypotheses [hypotheses especially selected to prove a predetermined viewpoint] or simply neglected." —*H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma (1981), p. 125.
*Narlikar ascribes the acceptance the theory has enjoyed as being due to minds closed to other possibilities:
"These arguments should indicate to the uncommitted that the big-bang picture is not as soundly established, either theoretically or observationally, as it is usually claimed to be. . The cosmological problem is still wide open and alternatives to the standard big-bang picture should be seriously investigated.
"The reason that alternatives like these are not so well known or not well enough investigated is partly because of the prevalent view that the big bang picture correctly describes the Universe. Personally, I think that closing one's options at this stage is harmful to the development of the subject as a branch of science. Astrophysicists of today who hold the view that 'the ultimate cosmological problem" [the origin of matter] has been more or less solved, may well be in for a few surprises before this century runs out." —*Jayant Narlikar, "Was There a Big Bang?" in New Scientist, July 2, 1981, pp. 19, 21.
*Alfven views the present situation as little better than desperate attempts to save a rapidly crumbling theory:
"On the other hand, there are an increasing number of observational facts which are difficult to reconcile in the Big-Bang hypothesis. The Big Bang establishment very seldom mentions these, and when non-believers try to draw attention to them, the powerful establishment refuses to discuss them in a fair way . .
"The present situation is characterized by rather desperate attempts to reconcile observations with the hypothesis to 'save the phenomena.' One cannot avoid thinking of the state under the Ptolemaean epoch [when everyone had to accept the teaching that the sun, planets, and stars orbited the earth]. An increasing number of ad hoc assumptions are made, which in a way correspond to the Ptolemaean introduction of more and more epicycles and eccentrics. Without caring very much for logical stringency, the agreement between these ad hoc assumptions with the Big-Bang hypothesis is often claimed to support the theory.
"In reality, with the possible exception of the microwave background condition, there is not a single prediction which has been confirmed." —*H. Alfven, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" in Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 5 (1970), p. 1203. [Alfven was a Nobel Prize recipient.]
*Brillouin sees the theory as not much more than wishful thinking and science fiction:
"Some . . sciences are a curious mixture of observation, coupled with interpretations. . with an extrapolation so far from actual experiment that one may feel shivering and wondering: how much wishful thinking, how much science fiction. It is splendid to discuss the creation of our world, but never forget that you are dreaming, and do not expect the reader to believe in any model, whether with a sudden atomic explosion or with a story expanding back and forth . . All this is too wonderful to be true, too incredible to be believable . . We are still very far from understanding cosmogony." —*L Brillouin, Relativity Reexamined (1970), pp. 2-3.
*Oldershaw charges that a deliberate refusal to consider alternative facts is involved:
"The standard 'Big Bang' model has come into increasing conflict with improving observational data and may require substantial modification . . [There is] a deliberate refusal on the part of some theorists to accept such results when they appear to be in conflict with some of the present oversimplified . . theories." —*R. Oldershaw, "The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology" in Astrophysics and Space Science 92 (1983), p. 357.
* Hoyle says that the oppressive fear to speak out and consider facts has resulted in a sickly pall over the entire theory:
"A number of serious difficulties have to be ignored, swept under the rug, difficulties which indeed it may never be possible to resolve from within this particular theory . .
"I have little hesitation in saying that as a result a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. As I have mentioned earlier, when a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers." —*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution (1983), pp. 179, 186.
Even *Shapely, an evolutionist of the evolutionists, admits that the origin of matter and the universe is probably beyond the realm of theory and science to penetrate:
"In the very beginning, we say, were hydrogen atoms; of course there must have been something antecedent, but we are not wise enough to know what. Whence came these atoms of hydrogen, these atoms, 20,000,000,000,000 (and 66 additional zeros) in number —atoms that we now believe have been forged into the material make-up of the universe. What preceded their appearance, if anything? That is perhaps a question for metaphysics.
"The origin of origins is beyond astronomy. It is perhaps beyond philosophy in the realm of the to-us-unknowable." —*Harlow Shapely, "On the Evolution of Atoms, Stars and Galaxies, " in Adventures in Earth History (1970), p. 77.
*de Vaucouleurs sees the theory as a shambles of too much theory and too little solid evidence; something that the next century of scientists will consider quite foolish:
"Nevertheless, the few facts and figures which in the past 40 years have been given prominence as particularly relevant to cosmology are still too little understood and often too poorly established or too recently discovered to form a solid basis for a 'final' solution . . Is it not possible, indeed probable, that our present cosmological ideas on the structure and evolution of the universe as whole (whatever that may mean) will appear hopelessly premature and primitive to astronomers of the 21st century?" —*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, " in Science 167 (1970), p. 1203.
*O'Rahilly questions whether scientists really know what they are talking about when they write their theories about those origins:
"Can we really be sure of the standard [the Big Bang] model? Will new discoveries overthrow it and replace the present standard model with some other cosmogony, or even revive the steady-state model? Perhaps. I cannot deny a feeling of unreality in writing about the first three minutes [of the Big Bang explosion] as if we really know what we are talking about." —*A. O'Rahilly, Electromagnetic Theory (1965), pp. 335-336.
*de Vaucouleurs throws up his hands in despair at the situation:
"Less than 50 years after the birth of what we are pleased to call 'modern cosmology,' when so few empirical facts are passably well established, when so many different oversimplified models of the universe are still competing for attention, is it, may we ask, really credible to claim, or even reasonable to hope, that we are presently close to a definite solution of the cosmological problem." —*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, " in Science 167 (1970), p. 1203.
*Gribben fears it may end up being a wrong turn into a blind alley for science:
"Perhaps cosmologists have been charging up a blind alley for the past quarter of a century, and there never was a big-bang at all. It would not be the first time that science took a wrong turning." —*J. Gribben, "Cosmologists Move Beyond the Big Bang" in New Scientist 110(1511):30 (1986).
*Gribben confides that many scientists think it is time to bury the theory:
"Many cosmologists now feel that the shortcomings of the standard [Big Bang] theory outweigh its usefulness." —*J. Gribben, "Cosmologists Move Beyond the Big Bang" in New Scientist 110(1511):30 (1986).
Lammerts, the only creation scientist quoted in this section, summarizes the problem bluntly:
"In conclusion, it is suggested that it is totally useless to speculate about what the universe used to be—when we don't even understand what it is today) The challenge to those who reject the Word of God on the subject still stands:
"Let him who scoffs at the Genesis record state specifically which hypothesis he would put in its place. Then let him attempt to resolve the insuperable difficulties inherent in that hypothesis and defend it against the onslaughts of future experimental findings.
"If this can be done successfully, it will be a 'first' in the history of astronomy." —Walter Lammerts, book review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1973, p. 171.
2 – THE ENTROPY PROBLEM
The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been considered by such men as *Albert Einstein to be the most enduring and solid of the physical laws. Yet that law renders totally unworkable the possibility of a Big Bang, stellar or planetary evolution, or the chance origin and evolution of life forms.
We will discuss this subject in much greater detail in chapter 25, Laws of Nature, but let us for a moment consider a succinct summary of the problem as given in the well-known radio broadcast, Stardate:
"You may know the word 'entropy.' It's a word that physicists use when talking about the amount of disorder in a system. It appears to be a basic physical law that, in our universe, entropy always appears to increase as a system evolves.
"In other words, once you scramble an egg, it stays scrambled; it doesn't turn spontaneously back into a whole egg again. Likewise, tidy rooms get messy; you have to keep cleaning your house over and over again. Or consider a sugar cube dropped into a cup of coffee; it dissolves and disappears. It never turns back into a cube again.
"The list goes on. But the idea is, in our universe, when things are left to themselves, they tend toward disorder. That's entropy.
"Yet, for the last several decades, the most widely believed theory about the birth of the universe says that it began in a Big Bang; [which would be] a state of unimaginable chaos.
"Later that chaos had to evolve into the extremely orderly structures we know today: majestically rotating galaxies made of billions of stars; stars that cycle through various predictable [theoretical] stages of evolution; and, last but not least, those most complex of all known organisms: human beings, who contemplate it all.
"So how can a universe that tends toward disorder, have evolved such orderly structures? That's one kind of question being asked today in cosmology, the study of the whole universe." —*Star Date radio broadcast, October 9, 1990.
Just as the species barrier wall, encoded within the genetic DNA, forbids the origin or evolution of new species (see chapter 10), so the stern requirements of the Second Law forbids the "accidentally progressive" nature of the entire evolutionary concept (see chapter 25), whether it concerns matter, stars, planets, or living things.
Picture from page 43
3 - THE MYSTERIOUS ELEMENTS
There are an astounding number of elements—and they are all extremely complex! How did they originate? How COULD they originate by themselves? Only a Master Craftsman could design and produce such things. Then there are the complicated molecular orbits within them! How can all this be?
When we think of the "origin of matter," we think of gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and planets. And we think of dirt, water, and rock. But consider the matter itself! Wondrously designed elements which form such complex chemical compounds. Evolutionists have theorized that, just as microbes changed themselves into insects, and those, in turn, into fish, then animals, etc.; so hydrogen invented helium out of itself, and that into yet another more complex nuclear structure—until all the elements had invented themselves! It was all done by "natural selection."
"In this strange paper, I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons.
"Curious as that seems, it is is a possibility worth weighing—against the only alternative I can imagine: Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist." —*George Wald, "Fitness in the Universe, " Origins of Life, Vol. 5 (1974), p. 26.
Enoch recognizes that it would be impossible for the simplest to form the most complicated, when the truth of the matter is just the opposite: the most complicated elements are continually changing themselves into less complicated ones.
"According to the theory of evolution, there should be a progressive building up from the simplest, hydrogen, to the most complex, uranium. [But, in reality] The exact opposite is found. Uranium is known to disintegrate into a series of elements of diminishing weights, the most sensational of which is radium, and the final one is lead. During this process, atoms of the gas helium, the next lightest to hydrogen, are thrown off. The heaviest elements are therefore the origin of the lightest." —*H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1967), p. 142.
Morris explains that far too much is involved for matter to have possibly produced itself by random accidents.
"The basic building blocks of matter, the atoms, are of course nicely arranged in an ascending series of elements from hydrogen up to uranium and even to the trans-uranium elements. It is natural for evolutionists to think of this also as an evolutionary series, and various attempts have been made to calculate how such a process of element synthesis could occur. To be complete, such a theory also has to include the evolution of hydrogen itself, as well as the various sub-atomic and sub-nuclear particles . .
"A more natural process is one of nuclear fission, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Matter is also converted to energy in processes of radioactive decay. But the conversion of primeval energy into matter in all its complex forms and structures in the beginning is strictly a theoretical mathematical exercise. Even if it happened, the question is still unanswered as to where all the necessary energy [within the atom] came from to start with. An omnipotent Creator seems necessary to empower such a process of cosmic nucleosynthesis, for no other source is available."—*H.M. Morris, et. al., Science and Creation (1971), p. 23. It is said that the Periodic Table of Elements was successfully arranged by the Russian chemist, Dmitri Ivanovich Mendelev, in 1869. Yet two other scientists (Alexandre Chancourtois, a French geologist, and John Newlands, a British chemist) had essentially arranged the elements in 1862.
On the chart on a nearby page, elements 57 through 71 are the rare-earth lanthanide series, and elements 89 through 103 is another rare-earth series: the actinides.
We generally speak of 92 elements as being "natural." That would be hydrogen (element 1) on up to uranium (92). Yet there are actually only 90 which are really "natural," for technetium (43) and promethium (61) were synthetically made from the breakdown of other elements. They do not exist in nature.
The trans-uranium elements are those above uranium. Eleven of them are shown on the chart (elements 93-103). But two others have been found since that chart was prepared. These are rutherfordium (Rf, 104) with an atomic weight of 259, and hahnium (Ha, 105) with an atomic weight of 260.
The radioactive elements are not clearly indicated on the accompanying periodic table of the elements chart. Here are the radioactive elements: technetium (43), promethium (61), polonium (84), and all elements above polonium (85-103).
Twentieth-century astronomy has made many discoveries, a number of which provide evidence opposed to Big Bang and other origin of matter and origin of universe theories. Because some of the following information is more technical, it is being placed in this appendix section, rather than in the main text. If it appears too deep, just skip over it. There is enough data in the main text to far and away disprove the origin of matter theories.PROBLEMS FORORIGIN OF MATTER AND ORIGIN OF UNIVERSE THEORIES
ANGULAR MOMENTUM —Origin of matter and origin of universe theories cannot explain angular momentum. To put it in simpler terms, why do the stars turn? why do the galaxies rotate? why do planets rotate about suns and stars about galactic centers? why do stars rotate in binaries and stellar clusters?
There is no doubt but that circular action is vitally necessary for planetary, stellar, and galactic stability. It has to be that way or everything would fly around and crash into one another. But how could rotation (turning) and revolutions (orbiting) have started? How could angular momentum be put into such perfectly balanced orbits all through space?
ANGULAR MOMENTUM AND MOMENTUM-MASS RELATIONSHIP—Throughout the universe a delicate relationship exists between the mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (the rapidity with which it turns). Why is this? The bigger the object, the slower it tends to rotate. Big Bang theorists cannot explain this. It cannot just be a coincidence.
"Pick any astronomical object. Divide its angular momentum by its total mass and also by its average density raised to the 1/6 power. The resulting number (call it Q) will be equal to the mass itself raised to roughly the 0.7 power.
"Numerological hocus-pocus? No, it seems that this is a universal property of bodies. Whether you pick a lowly asteroid, a star, a galaxy, or even the mighty Virgo cluster of galaxies, it works. The relationship is decisively shown by the straight line on the logarithmic chart. . prepared by L. Carrasco, M. Roth, and A. Serrano at the Mexican Institute of Astronomy.''—*"How Things Spin, " Sky and Telescope, 64:228 (1982).
UNIVERSAL ROTATION—Evidence is accumulating that, not only do asteroids, planets, and stars rotate—but the entire universe does also! Such a fact would, of course, greatly increase the positional stability of the universe. But, again, it does not agree with explosion theories of matter (Big Bang, etc.), nor with continuous hydrogen creation theories (steady state). Evidence for universal rotation includes position angles and polarizations of radio sources, and vorticity as seen in microwave background radiation, and other statistical asymmetries.
For more on this, see P. Birch, "Is the Universe Rotating?" Nature, 298:451 (1982); "Universal Rotation: Round 3," Sky and Telescope, 70:305 (1985); M.F. Bietenholz, et. al., "Is There Really Evidence for Universal Rotation?" Astrophysical Journal, 28711 (1984).
LOW MEAN DENSITY OF THE UNIVERSE—Detectable matter in the universe is low in density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. There is only about one third the amount that would be required to close the universe (that is, eventually halt its theoretical expansion), as noted in observations of galaxies and clusters, especially clusters.
Because of this, it is not possible for "gravitational condensation" of gas into stars to occur. Also the "expanding universe" theory is therefore incorrect.
"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology." —*Fred Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.
THE "PERFECT" EXPLOSION—Here are simply too many factors which render totally impossible the fulfillment of the evolutionary explosion theory of matter origin. We have abundantly observed that in this chapter.
Yet, in an effort to shoehorn the explosion into a successful venture, *Stephen W. Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time (1988), calculates that if that initial Big Bang had expanded a millionth-millionth faster, then the particles would have drifted out into space without producing stars, etc., and if that explosion had expanded a millionth-millionth slower, the matter would have collapsed back down upon itself. This would be a narrow tolerance of one part in minus 10 to the 54thl (1 x 10= x). That would be a point, zero, zero, 53 zeros and a 1.
On one hand, such tolerances are simply too impossibly small for success. On the other, we have clearly observed that gas in outer space would never, never form itself into chunks, stars, or anything else,—all aside from *Hawking's "tolerances."
MORE EVIDENCE ALL THE TIME—Every new book on science provides more evidence strengthening the case against evolutionary theory. One of the latest, summarizing the discoveries and conjectures of over a hundred books and science articles, contained the following comments:
Supernovas are supposed to have produced both the heavier elements (all those above hydrogen and helium), as well as the stars. Yet supernovas are quite rare. Our own galaxy has 100 to 200 million stars, yet it is estimated that, at the most, less than one a year occurs. But, as far as we know, there have only been two in the previous 387 years.
"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.
Even if they blow up more often, they could not possibly make enough new stars,—and they surely will not be able to produce enough additional ones in the future.
"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.
Then there is the question of those earliest galaxies. The Big Bang is theorized to have occurred about 15 billion years ago. Yet now there are immense, entire galaxies, each containing millions of stars, which have been found 10 billion years away! This makes some of them nearly as old as the Big Bang!
"In 1983, astronomer J. Anthony Tyson of AT&T Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, and his colleague Pat Seitzer began a survey of twelve tiny patches of the night sky that previous studies had shown to be almost entirely empty . . By 1987, they had discovered about 25,000 faint, fuzzy light sources, some of which are almost certainly among the most distant objects ever observed, lying as much as 10 billion light years away!" —*Op. cit., p. 60.
Please understand, those extremely distant objects were not quasars, but just normal, huge galaxies.
"The most surprising aspect of Tyson's discovery, though, is how quickly after the Big Bang stars seem to have started forming. From what scientists currently understand about the mechanisms of gravitational collapse, nebulous gases should have taken much longer than a few billion years to clump together into stellar bodies. As Tyson puts it, 'I think these observations are beginning to constrain the theories.' "—*Op. cit., 61.
But the situation is even worse than that. The most distant objects in the universe, including quasars and distant galaxies, were there when the Big Bang began, or earlier (according to whether you want to date that explosion at 15 or 20 billion years in the past). And these figures come, even after "readjusting" the Hubble Constant (the speed of light) to its limits, in an attempt to make those most distant objects more youthful.
"Astronomers are quite willing to choose their own preferred values for the Hubble constant, within the accepted range, and they can handily justify their choices as well. But the bottom line is that nobody really knows; the best astronomers can do is agree that the light from the most distant objects we see has been traveling for some 10 to 20 billion years."—*Op. cit., p. 102.
On pages 92-93, a universe-wide composite color photograph of the background radiation is shown. The specifications are so exacting and the scope is so massive that this photograph even shows the circular motion of the Milky Way Galaxy! But it also reveals that the background radiation is "remarkably even"—too even to have formed stars and galaxies.
"Cool radiation pervades all of space in this full sky map of microwave emissions recorded by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite [COBY] early in 1990. The swath of purple indicates the radiation's remarkable evenness; pink and blue areas are distortions caused by the motion of the Milky Way against the cosmic background.. [This radiation has] a uniform temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin."—"Op. cit., p. 93. Brown nicely summarizes some of the major problems in the Big Bang theory:
"The cosmic background radiation is considered by many to be the major evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. However, the extreme uniformity of this radiation and the huge voids and uneven distribution of matter [stars and galaxies] in large regions of the universe are inconsistent with the Big Bang. While it is true that the Big Bang theory can be juggled to fit the total amount of helium in the universe, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) contradicts the theory. If the Big Bang occurred, the universe should not contain rotating or highly concentrated bodies. Galaxies are examples of both. Furthermore, a big bang would, for all practical purposes, only produce hydrogen and helium. Therefore, the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang would have basically only hydrogen and helium. Many of those stars [Population III stars] should still exist. However, none can be found." —Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12.
You may wish to skip past the following analysis, since it does not deal with stellar evolution.
INTERGALACTIC SPACE VOYAGES
Evolution portrays mankind as arising from mire and wormlike ancestors and gradually, through evolutionary strife for supremacy, becoming gods.
The next great goal for these earth gods is to journey to distant stars, form colonies and, perhaps, eventually become masters of the universe. Scientific articles and entire books are being written on the subject, and careful planning for these future voyages is already underway.
Here are 12 reasons why man, unaided by his Creator, will never succeed in his plans for successful interstellar and trans-galactic flights.
1 - When astronauts go up in rockets, they immediately begin weakening physically. The body loses calcium, muscles begin deteriorating, and an entire set of physiological problems gradually, inexorably increase. A key factor is the lack of gravity. It would be extremely difficult to provide passengers on lengthy space flights with a gravity environment equivalent to what they had back on earth. Immense, tubular revolving wheels are said to be the answer. But such contraptions would only compound some other problems listed below.
The subtle degenerative effect of prolonged weightlessness on the human body would, over a period of years, be devastating. The constant resistance of the body to earth's gravity strengthens the body. Without it, muscles shrink, blood vessels constrict, fluid levels decrease, and bone wastes away. For example, in one month the heel bone can lose 5 percent of its mass. Rigorous exercise in outer space can, at best, only slow the deterioration somewhat.
2 - The immense periods of time required to journey to planets outside our solar system would bring inevitable wear and tear on the spaceship and its equipment. After only 15 years of operation, the space shuttles are showing a variety of problems. Yet NASA has a small army of service technicians to keep them in working order. What assurance is there that essential components of, or within, an interstellar spaceship would not break down in flight—far from the technicians and repair depots that could care for it?
3 - There are high-speed particles in outer space which would constantly bombard the spaceship with deadly radiation. These are cosmic rays from deep space, as well as X-rays and other emissions from solar flares. The short-term effects of radiation were clearly pointed out to the first astronauts, who reported seeing random flashes of light while in orbit,—that were in fact caused by nuclear particles bombarding their retinas. Earth's powerful magnetic field and dense atmosphere protect us from most of that. But in outer space it is different.
Plans to put a manned station on the moon include cylindrical modules buried under at least six feet of lunar topsoil to protect people from dangerous ultra-violet light, solar radiation, high-speed particles, and X-rays. How thick and heavy will the walls of the space ship be?
4 - Mankind has already filled the orbital heights with so much space junk, that there is already one chance in a hundred that within 10 years a space shuttle orbiting the earth will be damaged by space junk. At the speeds with which the junk travels, it has been said that even a paint particle could cause serious damage to a manned rocket.
Yet in outer space there are sizeable amounts of meteoroids. Relatively little is known about conditions in space outside our solar system. It could be even worse there. Yet the spaceship would have to travel at extremely high speeds in order to reach another solar system within any useful time frame. At such speeds and with such a lengthy trip, there could be little possibility of avoiding a collision with such objects.
5 - Any serious repair work would be out of the question. The spaceship could not possibly carry all the machine shop tools and spare parts needed. We are speaking here of a trip at highest speed which requires not weeks or months, but probably centuries.
Plans for interstellar flights always assume no serious repair problems in critical electrical or life-support systems inside the ship, or the immense outer part of its giant rotating wheel. But such problems would occur; some of which would doom the ship's occupants to speedy death.
6 - The spaceship would have to have a gigantic gravity wheel for the passengers to live in. But the Coriolis effect would cause serious problems. A spin rate of more than one revolution per minute would cause motion sickness. Even a wheel 600 feet in diameter would have to rotate three times a minute to simulate normal earth gravity! The resulting nausea would be terrible. An IMMENSE rotating wheel, called a Standford Torus, would be required in order to lower the Coriolis effect. Yet how could such a massive, speeding structure avoid colliding with asteroid particles in outer space? Wernher von Braun recognized that even slight shifts of weight within the torus would subtly affect the rate of rotation, with disorienting effects on the occupants. Even rotation rates as low as one revolution per minute would still cause them low-level physical turmoil.
7 -The air pollution in the living quarters of the wheel could become terrific. There would have to be room for plants, animals, large numbers of people, and all their wastes. It has been estimated that 10,000 colonists within a giant wheel would require 60,000 chickens, 30,000 rabbits, and sizeable herds of cattle, to maintain a mixed diet of about 2,400 calories a day. The entire contraption, with all that was going on within it, would be a closed-up little world. Even with plants, gradually the environment could become off-balanced, with disastrous results. Over a period of decades and even centuries, even a large spaceship would have too small an area for environmental mistakes to accumulate.
8 - Life-sustaining electrical gadgets would be needed. These would include such things as humidifiers to control the moisture in the air. Yet the plan is that solar energy would help provide the electrical power. But it would not take long for the spaceship to pass beyond the point where our sun was only a bright star.
9 - One of the greatest challenges faced by the colonists would not be biological or structural—but social. No matter how large the wheel they live in, it would seem alien and confining. Close-living quarters could bring problems that would result in serious disputes, mutiny, and even warfare.
10 - The distances to be traversed would be vast. In addition to Voyager I and II, two other unmanned flights (Pioneer 10 launched in 1972, and Pioneer 11 in 1973) have already left the solar system. Traveling at 25,000 mph, it will take 30,000 years for them to pass by Ross 248, the nearest star in their flight path.
Epsilon Eridani, one of the closest stars, would, at the speed of light, take 10.8 years to reach. But no ship built on earth could approach even a significant fraction of such an immense speed.
Astounding speeds would somehow have to be attained. Yet such speeds would render collision with the smallest particle destructive to the mission. It has been theorized that various exotically-fueled engines (such as metallic hydrogen, or matter/antimatter engines), could get it there more quickly. But this is all theory, and the lengthy acceleration and deceleration involved would be a terrible thing to live through. One of the latest theories is called a "pulse engine." This would involve literally setting off nuclear (fission) bombs behind the rocket ship, one after the other, only a few moments apart! Each blast would cause a shock wave that would hit ("pulse") against a metal plate behind the spaceship moving it forward! It is estimated that a pulse rocket would reach Epsilon Eridani in 330 years, or about 10 generations of passengers. During initial loading, the ship would, among other things, have to be loaded with hundreds of thousands of atomic bombs.
It is recognized that present space fuels (liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen) would be too inefficient in terms of pounds of thrust per pound of fuel. In other words, so much fuel would be needed for the journey that the spaceship could not carry it all.
In addition, even more fuel would be required to decelerate upon reaching a star, or the ship would just rapidly fly by.
Solar sails have been suggested, but it is now admitted that these would be useless beyond Jupiter's orbit.
11 - Radio contact with the spaceship would be impractical. Those back on earth could give the space travelers no verbal aid in case of trouble, much less go to their rescue. Even at the speed of light, radio messages would take more than eight years to reach the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. The time-lag problem in radio transmission would be a serious one.
The same factor would also render impossible the sending of an unmanned robot rocket to a nearby star.
12 - The possibility is extremely remote that a useable planet would be found orbiting the destination star. That discovery would shatter the morale of the passengers, and there would not be enough fuel to go on to another star. Stars are separated by vast distances!
The high cost of water, oxygen, and food transport, along with other problems, will ultimately doom man's hopes for long-term earth-orbiting, or lunar, or Martian space stations. In fact, if attention is not given to basic problems on earth, such as inexpensive water desalinization and transport methods, practical substitutes for dwindling fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear reactors, and stopping the wholesale destruction of trees; within a hundred years mankind will congregate near water sources, travel by horse-drawn wagons, and worry about how to get enough food and the firewood to cook it.
Here are a few sources for further study: P.W. Blass, and J. Camp, Society in Orbit, Space World, July 1988. M. Bloomfiel, Sociology of an Interstellar Vehicle, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 1986, Vol. 39. R.W. Bussard, Galactic Matter and Interstellar Flight, Astronautica Acta, 1960, Vol. 6. J. Eberhard, Space 1990: Launching a New Decade of Exploration, Science News, January 13, 1990. R.L. Forward, Negative Matter Propulsion, Journal of Propulsion and Power, January-February 1990. R.L. Forward, Starwisp: An Ultraviolet Interstellar Probe, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1985, Vol. 22. V. Garshnek, Crucial Factor: Human, Space Policy, August 1989. A.C. Holt, Hydromagnetics and Future Propulsion Systems, AIAA Student Journal, Spring 1980. Magnetic Sailing Across Interstellar Space, Ad Astra, January 1990. J.I. Merritt, Pioneering the Space Frontier, Princeton Alumni Weekly, October 11, 1989. R. Pool, The Chase Continues for Metallic Hydrogen, Science, March 30,1990. I. Wickelgren, Bone Loss: A Circulating Secret of Skeletal Stability, Science News, December 24-31, 1988. R.M. Zubrin, Nuclear Rockets Using Indigenous Propellants, Planetary Report, May-June 1990. R.D Johnson and C. Howbrow, Sace Settlements: A Design Study, NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, 1977. Voyager: Mission Summary, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, no date.
12-23-2005, 03:21 PM
Same I can say about God. can be doubted only by those who are ignorant...Originally Posted by Bean
12-23-2005, 03:39 PM
All this talk about bacteria adapting to a stress is essentially moot because in the end they will always be bacteria.
Genetic Mutations are not adaptations to stress.
12-23-2005, 04:13 PM
What facts? I haven't seen any just yet that haven't been proved wrong.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
I don't REFUSE to intertain, so please post your "facts" if you say other people post nothing but BS.
12-23-2005, 04:39 PM
As I said, I don't believe in ID, so I'm not sure where your hostility is coming from. As far as evidence for evolution, please, post some. There's some evidence and as I said I do believe some form of evolution occurs. However, ID does raise good questions, and that's what you're supposed to do in science: question. Not blindly accept without question what you're told. One question is how highly specialized organisms and organs evolve. Now sometimes, as with the common example of a bird's wing, ID supports beg the question by assuming a purpose to an organ. And while that may hold true for other organs, like the eye for example, it's still a good question as to how something that highly specialized evolves now matter how much time it took.Originally Posted by Bean
Many scientists believe in God.Having a science where it requires you to believe in a supernatural being or beings isnt science. Just like astrology.
Which is why many people of faith have no problem incorporating it into their world view. However, answering the question of how life began in the first place would be necessary for such a theory to truly be complete. Evolution of life isn't a complete theory if it doesn't explain the evolution of nonliving matter to life.One really funny fact, is that in the Theory of Evolution; there is NOTHING that proves or disproves the existence of some creator... it does NOT deal with how life ORIGINATED.
If there's so much evidence, please show one example of a complex organism evolving as an adaptation to the environment. The problem many have with evolution is it seems impossible to pin down a change. Now this is most likely due to such an incomplete record in terms of fossils.Web-spinning spiders are almost blind, but wandering spiders have great vision... its just a simple adaptation to their environment.
Did you even read my post? The giraffe example was a claim made bt a friend which I used to explain my dislike for the fact that most people believe what they're told just as a lot people simply believe in this religion or that, with equally silly justifications all around. Until you drop the attitude and start actually reading posts you'll get no more responses from me.If you simplify something down to claim a Giraffe "stretched" its neck over the years so it got longer; then you're just either being facescious (spelling?) or you're a complete idiot.
Please, tell me since you're so learned. Then please tell me what genetic or metabolic pathway that when tripped will specifically cause the growth of new vertibrae in larger numbers with no deleterious effects to the individual animals and the species once the mutants breed. What you're saying is that if we as humans deprive ouselves of ladders and put all the food on the tops shelves after a million years or so our arms or necks will be longer. That's foolish, and if you know as much about evolution as you claim you'd know that.So those that had longer necks and generally taller bodies tended to have an advantage (aka extra food supply)... over time, the more specialized you got at getting stuff from the tops of the trees, the better the chance you had to live.... now accelerate this process over say, 3 million years. How MANY generations of animals do you think that is?
You failed miserably.I dont mean any of my post to come off as offensive.
It might be wise for you to consider that many critics of evolution are not advancing the case for creationsim or Intelligent Design or any other theological agenda. They are simply questioning the strength of the evidence that exists thus far in favor of evolution and saying it's perhaps not as solid as many think. Another word of advice for all the self proclaimed scientists on this board: if you deny the abilty to question you are not a scientist, you are a religious fundamentalist of a different stripe, plain and simple.
Last edited by CDB; 12-23-2005 at 05:00 PM.
12-23-2005, 04:42 PM
So then what are they adapting to? What causes the mutation? And how can a mutation lead to the development of the eye? What is the cause? What necessitates an eye? Does the bacteria just keep "thinking" "I need to see! I need to see!" and then poof, an eye starts to develop?Originally Posted by canadian champ
What about everything else in that post? Rebuttals? Refutations?
12-23-2005, 04:44 PM
My mistake. I meant in complex organisms, on the order of mammals, reptiles, etc.Originally Posted by canadian champ
Which is how I remember evolution being explained to me when I was studying this topic. I don't remember one single example of such a mutation in a complex organism being given though.If you are using the term misfits to define being different from the population then this statement is correct. What you need to understand is that evolution isnt a linear process. Far from it, in fact, as the vast majority of mutations in a genome will occur in non-coding sections, or result in defective offspring. But the mutations that confer a specific advantage to that individual will result in greater propensity for propogation which would result in passing on the advantage to offspring...
What we need is a better way to examine the fossil record so specifc changes and the rise of new species can be tracked down, at least for one example.I dont believe that there is a large difference between micro and macro evolution. It's easy to understand micro evolution in terms of bacteria in culture, and it is also easy to see as the reproductive rate is exponential. To extrapolate this to larger more 'complex' species (not 'advanced') we need to slow down the reproductive rate and drastically increase the time frame. I believe that evolution is such a hard concept to accept because of the time frame involved. It is nearly impossible to understand hundreds of millions of years.
12-23-2005, 04:49 PM
My bad, thanks for correcting. This is what I was getting at:Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
The letters D.N.A. stand for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. DNA is the informational blueprint of all known life forms excluding the questionable life forms of some viruses that use a similar chemical blueprint structure called R.N.A. (Ribonucleic Acid).
DNA consists of 4 basic sub-units called nucleic acids (Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine). Each nucleic acid has a specific binding pair (A-T and C-G). These come together in the shape of a ladder twisted in a spiral that is commonly called a "Double Helix." Any letter can be next to any other on the poles of the ladder, but an "A" will only connect with a "T" across each "rung" or "step" of the ladder (Likewise a C with a G).
These basic units of DNA, when arranged in specific orders and functional sections along the poles of the ladder, are called genes. Each gene contains a message or "code." These codes are read by specific groups of proteins that decode the message contained in the various DNA sequences of A, T, C, and G. The proteins that read the DNA make a single stranded "working copy" of the DNA called messenger RNA (mRNA). This process is called transcription. After mRNA is made, several other different groups of proteins read the mRNA message. These proteins that read the mRNA bring together single protein units called amino acids and attach them together to form a new chain of amino acids that, when folded properly, becomes a new functional protein (after some complicated modifications). Note that only twenty different amino acids are used by almost all living things to make proteins.
Practically all living cells of all creatures on this earth form all their proteins in this manner. Proteins are the functional units of the cell. They make the cell able to work. Most functions of the cell depend on proteins to perform them - to including the creation of proteins to begin with. In fact, as has been very briefly detailed, proteins make themselves by decoding the information contained in DNA that tells the builder proteins how to make themselves. Every single step requires energy in the form of a molecule called Adenosine Tri-phosphate (A.T.P.). Not just any energy form will do. The cell can only use ATP to perform useful functions. It is very picky. And, interestingly enough, ATP is also created with the help of very specific proteins.
In the very first cell (assuming that there was a “first” cell) what came first - the DNA or the protein? Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist. So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be made. Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and maintained by the proteins of the cell. Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.
Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously. Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes. This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?
This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.
This is just one little problem that must be overcome to explain the existence of the very first living cell. According to the theory of evolution, the first living cell had to have been formed by mindless naturalistic mechanisms that defy all the known laws of nature. Natural law says that all inanimate matter desires equilibrium. Homogeny is the ultimate goal of nature, even with the input of large amounts of outside heat or disordered energy from the sun (just try heating up a collection of organic matter and see what happens - all that will happen is that it will become hot homogenous ooze, but nothing much more complex than this).
The most simple living cell is almost infinitely far away from chaotic homogeny. Every living cell is at an extremely high level of meaninful informational complexity and yet just one of these amazing machines, which still cannot be reproduced by science, just happened to come together even before “natural selection” was even theoretically around?! Come on now. Is this a rational theory? Consider the fact that the simplest living cell is far more complicated than the best supercomputer in the world today. And yet many believe that such a cell assembled itself in the primitive ocean soup of this Earth just a few billion years ago? Really? Would anyone believe that a supercomputer could assemble itself in the shifting sands of the earth's primitive deserts even given trillions of years? Of course not . . . but why not?
All the building blocks for a supercomputer are there mixed up in the desert sands. Volcanic activity, lightening, and wind could provide the necessary energy for construction. What's the problem then? Homogeny. Homogeny is the problem. Parts do not assemble themselves in a non-homogenous way that is very far beyond the sum of the collectively functional/meaningful information contained in the individual parts themselves. This just doesn't happen via the normal mindless processes of nature. Pre-established information and directed energy from an outside source is needed for the assembly of parts that produce a function that is very much greater than the informational sum of the individual parts. It is the pre-established order of a living cell, to include the pre-formed information contained in its DNA that allows it to be what it is. If brought together randomly, the individual parts of a cell would never self-assemble themselves into the form and function of a living cell regardless of how much outside energy and interactive potential was provided to the parts.
It would be like taking millions of watch parts and shaking them all together for a billion years and expecting a watch to self-assemble just because all the necessary parts and required energy are there. After a billion years, or even trillions upon trillions of years, would anyone really expect something even close to the functional level of a watch to be formed by such a process? How then are the molecules that form a living cell any different?
12-23-2005, 04:51 PM
I can only speak for Christianity, but accepting evolution is rejecting God's Word and God altogether. He has magnified His Word above even His own name. You absolutely cannot go the route of accepting Genesis as a fairy tale or allegory or however else mainstream Christians want to justify it so they can be on science's good side.
If God used evolution to "create" all the animals and whatever in the world today, then He contradicted Himself when He said that on the sixth day all that He had made was VERY good. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, these involve death, and death didn't come into the world until Adam and Eve chose to disobey God.
End of story. You cannot believe in God's Word in its entirety and still accept the theory of evolution as the means by which all the species today exist. And you cannot pick and choose what you will and will not believe from God's Word. The very idea is preposterous.
But that's slightly off-topic. Let's get back to the main debate.
12-23-2005, 04:58 PM
Where do dinosaurs come into play in Christianity? Just Curious..
12-23-2005, 04:59 PM
I have to give an amen to that. If you are a Christian, take note of what he said. If you are not, it is a non issue.Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
12-23-2005, 05:08 PM
Dinosaurs are never actually mentioned in the Bible under that name, but there are numerous notations of dragons (probably just what dinosaurs were called before the word dinosaur was coined). Look the passage at the end of Job where it talks about the Behemoth which was, based on the descriptions, probably a dinosaur very similar to a brontosaurus. Also note the description of Leviathan there as well which may have been a fire-breathing dinosaur.Originally Posted by g4ud1n
Blowing fire isn't so far fetched if you consider a creature like the bombardier beetle with the glands that secrete chemicals from its rear that mix to form an exothermic reaction, providing a pretty descent defense against being eaten.
12-23-2005, 05:23 PM
The general idea is that an eye didn't just poof into existence. This is the way many ID proponents say evolution works and reject it on that basis, and they are wrong. It's a strawman argument. The idea of an eye just developing, or of some protohorse having some mass mutation and mothering a race of zebras or giraffes isn't what is going on in evolutionary theory. A better explanation is that some sort of cells that were sensitive to radiation in the visible spectrum existed for some reason, maybe as a random mutation or maybe this trait arose out of environmental pressure. Then over a long ass period of time the trait was passed on, changed slightly here and there, some species with it died out, some continued, and over time the current organ we know as an eye developed.Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
It's the jump from the simple to the complex that's hard to account for, no matter how much time passes. The reason the eye is a good example of this is because there are so many parts in there that make it work, and either it did come into being as a finished organ or it has to be explained how some generalized cells/organ evolved into the vitrious humor, the sclera, the retina, the optic nerve and disc, the cornea, the lens and the various ligaments and muscles that can focus it, etc. And that's just the human eye. The fact that there are many examples of the eye in different forms suggests that it did evolve. How it evolved is another matter. And also when becomes an issue. The fact that so many different species that must have separated from their common ancestor so long ago have such a similar organ would pose the question of whether or not it developed once and was passed down, or did it somehow develop simultaneously in different, existing species. Both approaches have problems. If it's the former every living organism would need to be descended from the first animal with eyes, a trilobite I believe, or we then have to explain how such similar specialized organs evolved seperately.
Last edited by CDB; 12-23-2005 at 05:39 PM.
12-23-2005, 05:28 PM
How can the bible be God's word if the gospels included (or, rather, not included) were the result of a committee within the church hundreds of years after jesus died? Doesn't that seem contradictory to you? Do you seriously believe that Job was a real man? Don't you find that story a far-fetched allegory written to TEACH a MORAL STORY rather than an actual sequence of events?
I'm not really an atheist (as some pro evolution people other than myself are), but how do you believe so many stories (although they do teach a genuine lesson, as they were INTENDED to) in their literal sense, without questioning their actual validity? Did you know that there is no proof that Moses actually existed, or that jewish people were actually enslaved by the Egyptians whatsoever? Do you believe that Noah had billions of species of animals in his Ark? Do you believe that the whole world flooded?
If you look at the bible with any common sense whatsoever, you would find that it could only be the word of god through stories teaching valuable moral lessons. The world didn't flood 5000 years ago. A portion of the middle east flooded. Because the bible said the world flooded, do you believe that the whole world literally flooded? Do you believe the world was created in 6 days when, through actual scientific research, it took billions of years? Do you believe that God works in 24 hour increments? How long is a day to god?
Athough any rational person can be a devout Christian both in thoughts and in action, no rational person can take the literal word of the Bible as infallible truth, because it's not.
12-23-2005, 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by DmitryWI
Who cares? God has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion other than being the whole basis of ID; which means its a religo-science.
No one's faith comes into question here; we are scientifically analyzing here. No one is questioning who created the universe or how it was created.
And I swear, TheCrownedOne, you pulled that right off of a website. We're not discussing the Big Bang. Life's origins or the universe's origins is NOT being discussed in this thread. Stay on topic or don't bother posting.
There are no meandering theories. You havent read enough if you're making that statement. Fossil and geologic records are evidence of things that really occur. Now if you'd like to debate THAT........
12-23-2005, 06:22 PM
Stay civil, or don't bother posting.Originally Posted by Bean
12-23-2005, 06:23 PM
Your absolutely right. The fossil record shows no transitional species. Where are the millions of years of half horse half giraffe fossils.Originally Posted by Bean
Similar Forum Threads
- By Konvicted in forum Powerlifting/StrongmanReplies: 25Last Post: 09-11-2008, 01:24 AM
- By Outside Backer in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 10-26-2005, 04:33 PM
- By Guido in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 08-01-2005, 04:14 PM
- By JTrans in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 11-15-2004, 09:27 PM
- By WannaGro in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 10-13-2004, 03:26 PM