me wrote:Behold the witty reply of the Necrontyr, persuers of cold science
The evolutionists' problem was how to explain away the fact that everything in nature exists. They have used theories, which they call cosmology, to explain how matter and stars could have come into existence.
no, just no
Here is what the Big Bang theory teaches:
When nothing gets together. The emptiness is supposed to have gathered together in one place, and gotten so thick that the "nothing" exploded—and blew itself into hydrogen gas.—p. 14.
Laws appear. The laws of nature somehow invented themselves during the explosion.—p. 14.
alrightyy then, this is as oppsed to 'the big man set them up?'
Gas gets into clumps. Then the outward exploding gas supposedly gathered itself into clumps.—pp. 14-15.
It's called gravity, it was why you were brain damaged when your momma dopped you
A universe of explosions. The loose, outward flowing gas next decided to push itself into stars. Then all the stars began exploding in super-nova explosions. But, just before light rays from the explosions could reach our planet in our time in history, the explosions are said to have conveniently stopped.—p. 15.
'nuff said
Heavier elements made. Those explosions are supposed to have made all the heavier elements (those above hydrogen and helium).
ahh fusion, disprove, come on you odious crettin
Rearranging time. In order to adapt to the theory, the supposed age of the universe has been pushed back to a theoretical age of 15 billion years, when the Big Bang is said to have occurred.—p. 15.
again
No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.—pp. 16-17.
In concert with the necron, develop humans into a decent species assignement, please sterilise youself and all genetic relatives, you species needs you to.
30 - Many stars rotate too fast. According to the theory, stars should not have the high rotational speeds they have; in fact, they should not have any.—p. 23.
31 - High-spin stars. The theory could not produce extremely rapid spinning stars. Yet there are stars in the sky which do rotate at such high speeds.—pp. 23-24.
Behold the double posting king
35 - There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both.—pp. 24-26.
antimatter annihalition releases energy, conservation of energy don't make me make it manditory
40 - No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.—p. 28.
a sigularity is not nothing, idiot
41 - No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called "heavier elements," "post-helium elements," and elements with "more metal." These definitions will help explain that which follows:
fusion plasma can be made, proving it's possibility
7 reasons why background radiation does not support the Big Bang.
"Background radiation" is a very weak microwave radiation flowing throughout space in all directions. It was first discovered in 1965, and is said to be the final leftover outer-space radiation from the Big Bang. Although called the "dying breath of the Big Bang," it is not an evidence of it (pp. 29, 31) for several reasons:
1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation flows toward us from all directions; yet it would come from only one direction if it was from the Big Bang.—pp. 31-32.
foolish idiot, is earth at the edge of the universe? no, is the universe hypercurved? probably {though I know the answer, i'm not telling humans}
2 - It is too weak. The radiation should be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than it is.—p. 32.
according to the rectal cortex?
3 - It lacks the proper spectrum. The radiation does not have the ideal "black body"; that is, it should have total light absorption capacity.—p. 32.
specify
4 - Its spectrum should be far hotter (5 degrees K) than it actually is (only 2.73 degrees K). If the explosion had occurred 15 billion years ago, the background radiation should now be emitting a far higher temperature heat [K = Kelvin, or absolute zero, which is -273.15 degrees centigrade].—p. 32.
dark matter, any number of complex things I need not explain to you.
5 - It is too smooth. Research proves that this radiation is definitely too smooth to agree with the Big Bang theory. It is not clustered enough, and even if it was, it could not produce stars. Gas in outer space (and on earth) always pushes outward, never inward.—pp. 32-33.
as is the suface of your brain {the wrinkles being where mose activity takes place}
6 - A failure from the beginning. Predictions made as to the nature of the required radiation (its temperature and its single directional source) were not fulfilled even when background radiation was first discovered in 1965.—p. 32.
even the necrontyr's scentists aren't always correct
7 - What is the source of the radiation? Everything in the universe is lumpy, except the gas in outer space: (1) background radiation (which is microwave radiation) and (2) infrared radiation. It appears that the source of both types of radiation is nothing more than the outflowage of radiation from the stars and galaxies on all sides of us.—pp. 33-34.
twit, it comes from your hot air
stellar evolutionary theories,
would this be natural selection of stars by c'tan eating the tasty ones?
CONTENT: Origin of Matter - 3
Other Origin of Matter Theories - In addition to the Big Bang, there are other theories floating around
namely your 'god,' come on, your species has greater potential than slave labour doesn't it? as that is what we usually tell pimatives we are.
The Elemental Forces - The delicate balance of three elemental ratios
elemental?
#1 Gravity - The universe, as we know it, would be destroyed if gravity was not in perfect balance
yah, that'll do for now, if I just told you then you would never advance
#2 Proton to Neutron Ratio - The neutron can exceed the weight of the proton by only a certain amount
again yes, at your level
#3 Photon to Baryon Ratio - The photon to baryon ratio is crucial to gravitational attraction
again yes, at your level
#4 Nuclear Force - The atoms are held together by a precise amount of attraction
again yes, at your level
#5 Electromagnetic Force - No chemical bonds could form if it were different
that being how our main weapons work
The basic forces of matter and the universe are astounding. yesThey could not have come into existence by accident.no There are several basic forces in nature which would destroy the universe—or not let it form—were it not for the delicate balance within each of them. I have seen the failed univeres unable to support anything, has it not occured to you that they are there? Here is scientific evidence. Evolutionary theory is a myth; creation science is correct. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Leap in logic, dispreoved already you are a waste of protein
THREE MEN WHO GAVE US OUR MODERN STELLAR THEORIES
Three men stand out as highly influential in giving scientists their speculative theories of how matter and stars originated. Learning who they are, one is startled to think that their musings were accepted by the scientific community—especially in view of the fact, as we have shown elsewhere, that scientific evidence runs counter to their theories
If I had time i'd investigate you
3 - Astronomical records. Prior to 2250 B.C., we have not one record of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people! Because it is totally accurate, that earliest recorded astronomical event is a significant date. It comes only about a hundred years after the Flood. We have reason to believe the sky was darkened with volcanic eruptions for years after the Flood ended.—p. 32.
apep, the serpent god of egyptian mythology would occasionaly try to swallow the sun, hence the sun god Re's constant beating th S**t out of him.
6 - Growth of coral. Coral growth rates indicate the earth is quite young. No known coral formation is older than 3,500 years.—p. 29.
and this has no relevence at all it's almost as bad as "no community is over 3,500 yars old" you think because there are no gesalt organism's alive from this time that ... ahh forget it
1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., was erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.—pp. 29-30.
what more do you want, an eternal 'world tree'?
2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)—p. 30.
not only do you ignore the fact that natural selection explains this, you ignore the vast number of inherited desised humans can suffer from (not as many as we necrons used to have though) the you use a stunning pile of reverse logic and make a conclusion, and skew reality with it?!?!?!*@&^!^%!!!!!
1 - Historical records. If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500 B.C. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be lowered for several reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 B.C.—pp. 30-31.
I was there, you have been around that long, and you have a feeble rate of develpoment, I have seen the great king list of Rammeses, it is broken at both ends, idiot, also just how old do you think egypt is???
2 - Early Biblical records. Bible records carry us back to a Creation date of approximately 4000 B.C., with a Flood date of about 2348 B.C. Scientific facts point us toward the same dates.—pp. 31-32.
shut up
7 - Population statistics. Estimates, based on population changes, indicate that, about the year 3300 B.C., there was only one family.—p. 33.
again tought up by your rectal cortex
