Creationists get even dumber and more long-winded

[Darth Wong]

Check this out:

Samuel J.Booth wrote:

The following information has been referenced from this website, "http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm." I have read the information, cross-referenced it with other "evolutionary" or "scientific" sites and books, and I have found your proposed theory to not have just a small number of holes. I realize that you will probably ignore this information; however, the time necessary to critique the innumerable fallacies employed in your logic is not at my present disposal. Therefore, I reference you to this site and information for your perusal.

In other words, you are incapable of answering the points so you simply copy and paste a large volume of nonsense. How unusual for a creationist.

The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

This WOULD be a great rebuttal if the Big Bang theory actually required us to start from nothingness. However, it doesn't. This indicates the tragic level of ignorance and dishonesty that is typical of creationist sources.

7 – The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.

Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that 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. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:

"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, 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. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

Those calculations are based on old data. We now know that the rate of universal expansion is accelerating rather than decelerating as one would expect from those predictions.

8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!

The fact that we don't know the exact parameters of the Big Bang doesn't mean it didn't happen. Did the residents of Hiroshima have to know the exact radiation flux inside the nuclear device in order to know that it destroyed their city? We can SEE the universe expanding; the Big Bang is merely our extrapolation back to the beginning of this expansion, and we don't need to know the precise conditions of the first few instants subsequent to the Big Bang in order to know that it happened. There are plenty of things we cannot necessarily compute from first principles without denying that they happened at all.

9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter—if the Big Bang was true.

"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should 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, p. 343.

"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," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.

Why do you think this disproves Big Bang theory?

10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.

We have mentioned ten reasons why matter could not be made by a supposed Big Bang. But now we will discuss what would happen IF it actually had.

No, you have quoted ten reasons why creationists are dishonest and ignorant, because they THINK that the Big Bang theory has something to do with nothingness turning into matter.

THE OUTWARD RUSHING PARTICLES

1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

No one knows why the primordial conditions of the universe were "lumpy", but once again, that does not disprove that the Big Bang occurred. One need only look at the rapidly outrushing universe to draw the obvious conclusion that it was much, much smaller at one time, hence something happened to make it expand.

We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another together, and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.

THE PARTICLES CHANGED DIRECTIONS

AND FORMED GAS CLOUDS

The theory—Gradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.

1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated. By "gas," we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.

2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.

We will now ASSUME that the outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves into immense clouds.

The universe itself is expanding due to the Big Bang; it is not a conventional matter explosion into empty space. You've got the concept wrong. And if the particle field is uneven, you will get "clumping" whether you believe it or not.

GAS CLOUDS

PUSH THEMSELVES INTO STARS

1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. 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. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

Lies.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

Lies.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

Show me the scientific source for this claim.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

We have observed stellar accretion phenomena. Yet again, you are simply lying.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

Wrong. It is based on the common but false misconception that the Big Bang is an expansion of matter into empty space, rather than an expansion of spacetime itself.

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

It is hardly "mysterious" how this might happen; you can easily perform an experiment with a pair of rolling magnets at different velocities to see how the slower one drags the faster one back and changes its direction.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

Ummm ... do you realize that the universe is still expanding? So many of your arguments rely on the absurd "it would have to stop and reverse direction" claim that it's become painfully obvious you do not think the universe is still expanding.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

Honestly, this just grows tiresome. You are making statements which are simply, totally false. Not only can we OBSERVE stellar accretion discs in space right now through our telescopes, but your theoretical predictions are wrong. If the gas does not already have escape velocity from the gravity well of the particle system (in which case it would not be circling the center for long), then any energy bled off to the environment (eg- in the form of radiation) will represent lost kinetic energy and will cause a further descent into the gravity well.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for 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 (*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe," Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

The fact that we don't understand the expansion rate of the universe does not mean it isn't happening, or that it never started. This inane rhetorical tactic of "we don't understand everything about it, so it never happened" is really starting to get annoying, especially since you keep repeating it. We can OBSERVE the universe expanding at an incredible rate; this is not something that requires complete comprehension in order to accept.

"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.

See above.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

None of which applies if we start with a much denser mass which is already lumpy. You are taking the claim out of context, just as you have consistently been doing so far. The claim has to do with accretion starting from low-density conditions, whereas the initial conditions of the universe would have been very dense, despite the rapid expansion. Any "lumpiness" would allow considerable accretion, and at much greater rates than would occur today in a random region of interstellar space with two lonely particles.

11 - *Novotny’s research findings are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of "gaseous dispersion." It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time. Do you agree?

Frankly, after seeing some of the outlandish lies and distortions of intent that you have employed so far, I am not willing to accept your vague description of this claim. Especially since we can SEE stellar accretion occurring in the universe today. Not to mention the fact that external perturbations such as supernova shockwaves can theoretically collapse an existing interstellar cloud.

If you agree, you are being scientific (for you are agreeing with scientific facts); if you disagree, you are fooling yourself.

Why is it that people who dispute the findings of science insist on referring to their own nonsensical claims as "scientific facts"? Especially when it's so easy to point out numerous places where they've gotten the facts totally wrong?

We will now ASSUME that the clouds formed themselves into what evolutionists call proto-stars, or first-generation stars.

STARS EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS

PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS

The problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.

The theory—The first stars, which were formed, were so-called "first-generation stars" (also called "population III stars"). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding it.

1 - Another imaginative necessity. Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium.

Why do you insist on assuming that biological evolution and cosmology are related?

2 - The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important point, and is called the "helium mass 4 gap" (that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. This 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. Even if it spanned this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever heavier elements until it reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!

"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, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.

Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5 gap.

Ha ha ha, thanks for the laughs. You have now proven beyond a doubt that you have absolutely NO idea whatsoever what you are talking about, and you're just spewing quotes out of context, distorted claims, outright lies, and rhetorical nonsense in order to generate a semblance of awareness. You don't need to step up in atomic weights one by one, as if you're counting pennies. The "mass 5 gap" is the most ignorant and preposterous treatment of nuclear physics that I've ever seen, and you made a serious mistake by raising it as an argument. I'm not some high-school kid; I actually have a modicum of education. Nuclear fusion does NOT "stop" at He-4. Nuclear physics is a fairly well-understood field, having been experimentally researched since before the second world war.

Tell me, if someone adds a pair of dimes together to get 20 cents, do you ask him how he got over the "12 cent gap"? Honestly, you creationists would be funny if you were not so earnest and obnoxious. LOL, "mass 5 gap" ... that's a new one. Probably the funniest and most preposterously ignorant thing I've heard all year. Did you honestly think that science could not explain how you add mass-4 nuclei together to skip over the "mass 5 gap"? Seriously, did this make sense to you? What level of education did you attain?

He4 can fuse with He4 to produce Be8, despite your "mass 8 gap". Now Be8 is not stable, but it can last long enough on the short timescales of nuclear reactions for a subsequent Be8+He4 reaction to occur, which produces Carbon-12. C12, of course, is quite stable. And your source is clearly not well-versed on nuclear physics, nor has he even taken an introductory course. This is a fine example of the kind of ignorance which is pervasive throughout the creationist world: people speaking in an authoritative manner about subjects they do not understand, and making claims that are totally false.

We will now ASSUME that hydrogen and helium explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:

3 - There has not been enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist. We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into "first-generation" stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later, reformed into "second-generation" stars. These are said to have exploded into "third-generation" stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.

4 - There are no population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory, there should be "population III" stars, containing only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made "population II" (second-generation stars), but there are only population I and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).

This argument is obviously based on your silly notion that all elements heavier than helium were made in supernova explosions, when in fact supernovae are only necessary for MUCH heavier elements, like transuranics. Stars make everything up to iron through nuclear fusion.

5 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. 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 fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no "first generation" ("Population I") stars, Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits.

Yet another totally false claim. These "balancings" are maintained due to simple physics; if an object lacks enough kinetic energy to maintain orbit, it falls in. If it has too much, it flies away. Whatever remains will stabilize. You are using the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy; look it up.

6 - There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the needed heavier elements. There are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties and intricate orbits. 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. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively few such explosions.

Stars produce everything up to and including iron through nuclear fusion; you really need to do more reading and less copying and pasting of creationist gibberish.

7 - Throughout all recorded history, there have been almost no supernova explosions. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now. Research astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185, and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on February 24, 1987.

"Supernovae are quite different . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was the closest to us in the last 350 years."—*Isaac Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.

All of recorded history is an insignificant pinprick in cosmological history, and the observed rate of supernovae is in line with expectations. Not all of them are as bright and close as the Crab Nebula explosion, but that doesn't mean we haven't observed them.

8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.

Every nebula is the remnant of a stellar explosion; we HAVE seen evidence of massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space. And I'm losing patience for debunking obviously false claims.

9 - The most distant stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier elements. We can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones have heavier elements (are "second-generation"), and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

They don't have to. The rate of supernovae is quite adequate for cosmological purposes. How often do you think they need to explode?

10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough matter to make additional stars. There are not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions. Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion 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. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in the universe.

Yet again, this is based on your false belief that nuclear fusion cannot go beyond He4.

11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions. The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements. But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do not produce heavy elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap. But the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.)

Yet another massive distortion. Even the most casual research will indicate that a star eventually turns into a multi-layered object with an iron core and progressively lighter elements at the shallower levels until you reach a shell of helium and hydrogen. This will naturally be thrown off first, hence producing hydrogen and helium emission spectra when observed from a distance. Given enough time, heavier elements will be observed. Look up "supernova remnants" on the Internet to find numerous examples of observed supernova remnants which are rich in elements heavier than helium, despite your absurd claim that this is impossible.

12 - An explosion of a star would not produce another star. It has been theorized that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along with it.

And what do you base this claim upon? Your personal authority? An outgoing shockwave will add gas to an existing cloud while compressing it at the shockfront, thus locally increasing its density. This can potentially create the necessary conditions for an accretion centre.

So we find that the evidence does not support the various aspects of the Big Bang and stellar evolution theories.

2 - MORE FACTS

WHICH BURY THE THEORY

MORE PROBLEMS FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION

1 - According to the theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But the so-called "older stars" have been found to have no more heavy elements than the so-called "younger stars." All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same amount of heavy elements.

Yet another outright lie. What do you think carbon stars are?

2 - The theory says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang, and 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.

Of course, since it was manufactured in stellar fusion and then hurled outward by subsequent explosions.

3 - The theory says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified (ever farther apart) particles. So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized original giant explosion.

No, it disproves the idea that the original expansion was perfectly smooth. It does not disprove the idea that the expansion occurred at all.

4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles outward—leaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of space—with an expanding center containing nothing.

What makes you think that explosions in space produce an outer perimeter of outflowing matter with nothing inside? You keep talking about the Crab Nebula; don't you realize that it did not produce this effect, hence your claim is wrong?

5 - According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like those nearby.

What differences are you expecting to find? Do you want them to be purple and sprout arms or something? Stars all follow certain patterns and laws of physics; the early ones should not be dramatically different from newer ones.

6 - Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist—and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets, and moons.

Obviously you have no experience whatsoever with wind tunnels, otherwise you could SEE this supposedly impossible process whereby laminar flow turns into turbulent rotating motion. I've seen it myself; all you need is some kind of perturbation or irregularity. Perfectly laminar flow is actually very difficult to maintain.

7 - Inward pushing gas would not change to a rotating star. According to the theory, stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it.

Actually they would, unless every single particle is aimed perfectly at the centre with no inaccuracy whatsoever: a complete impossibility. Haven't you ever seen a figure skater spinning on the ice? As he brings his arms in toward his body, he spins faster. Did you ever notice that? Is your knowledge of physics so pitiful that you honestly do not understand why?

8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours.

See above.

9 - Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this.

Have you ever tried asking one if he can explain this, or are you just taking creationists' word for it that they can't?

10 - There are high-velocity stars that are traveling far too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins.

Cosmological, not evolutionary. And I want to see proof of this claim.

11 - If the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction; but stars, clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another. (More about the expanding universe theory later.)

12 - Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it.

13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major, unsolved problem.

"As IBM’s Philip E. Seiden, put it: ‘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."—*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

14 - The universe is full of stars, with relatively little gas. But it should be the other way around: full of gas and no stars. The Big Bang 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.

15 - The universe is full of super clusters. These are the biggest "lumps" of all. It has recently been discovered that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger super clusters. The "Big Bangers," as their colleagues call them, excuse the problem by saying that "gravity waves" produced the galaxies. But gravity, in any form, could not press floating hydrogen and helium into a star or planet out of gas, make a marvelously organized disk network of stars, or produce the precisely balanced spinning and orbiting of planets and stars.

"The main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers."—*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Theory under Attack," Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

This is just repetition of your earlier fallacious arguments, all of which have already been addressed. Stop relying on repetition. And stop pretending that there is no explanation for cosmic "lumpiness"; while there is no widely agreed-upon explanation, there ARE possibilities. For example, it is known that at very small scales, physics is dominated by quantum probability rather than the "billiard ball physics" upon which all of your arguments are based, and the primordial conditions could have met these criteria.

16 - Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the entire theory of the Big Bang. We will briefly summarize the data here. You will find it discussed more fully (along with additional quotations) in the chapter, Origin of the Stars, in our 3-volume set on our website. It is also partially referred to in "6 - Solar Collapse" in the Age of the Earth chapter in this paperback.

There is evidence that our sun "shines," not by hydrogen explosions, but by solar collapse. Yet stellar evolution is keyed to the fact that stars are fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose daily amounts to 4 million tons [3.6 million mt] a second. The problem is the fusion process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, and each square inch of earth’s surface should be hit each second by a trillion neutrinos. Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy (cf. *J.H. Bahcall, Astronomical Journal, 76:283, 1971). *Corliss, the world leader in tracking down scientific anomalies, considers the "missing neutrinos" to be "one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy" (*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, 1987, p. 40). It was not until the 1930s that the nuclear theory of starlight was developed by *Hans Bethe and *Carl von Weizsacker. Yet it remains a theory. In contrast, there is strong evidence pointing to solar collapse as the true cause of solar energy.

The scientific basis for solar collapse, as the source of solar energy, was developed over a century ago by two brilliant scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz and Lord Kelvin. If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be constantly released. But evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, because it would mean the universe (and the earth) is much younger. Nuclear fusion would mean billions of years for a star’s life; solar collapse only a few million. A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet [24.27 m] a year is all that would be necessary to produce our sun’s actual energy release. This is a radius shrinkage of only .009 feet [.27 cm] per hour.

Some scientists have found evidence of solar collapse. One major study was done by *John A. Eddy and *Aram Boornazian (*New Scientist, March 3, 1983, p. 592). The basis for this is an analysis of solar transit measurements, made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1846. It was calculated that the sun is shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1% per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed solar eclipses for the past four centuries. A separate report by *Ronald Gilliland confirmed the *Eddy and *Boornazian report (*op. cit., p. 593).

"The sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century . . corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour [15.24 dm]."—*G.B. Lublihn, Physics Today, Vol. 32, No. 17, 1979.

The above findings would indicate that our sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. As already mentioned, if hydrogen was the solar fuel, we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos; yet almost none are detected.

Jupiter is also apparently contracting, because it is giving off more heat than it receives from the sun. A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter. A similar situation exists for Saturn.

"Jupiter . . radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling process."—*Star Date radio broadcast, November 8, 1990.

"Saturn emits 50% more heat than it absorbs from the sun."—*Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February 1991.

These facts are known; but, in order to defend evolutionary theory, the decision has been made to stick with solar fusion (hydrogen explosions) as the cause of solar energy and sunshine.

"Astronomers were startled, and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that, if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred million years."—*John Gribbin, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun," New Scientist, March 3, 1983.

"Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust [our earth’s rock strata] has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the sun is at least as old as the earth . . We must conclude that . . another source must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star."—*Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.

Summarizing solar collapse: The evidence that hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) is the cause of solar energy (sunshine) would be a great abundance of neutrino radiation. But that evidence is missing. The evidence that solar collapse (gradual shrinkage) is the cause has been definitely found. Evolutionists reject solar collapse as the cause, (1) since it would mean our sun and the universe could not be more than a few million years old; (2) their cosmology theories would be wrong and (3) the Big Bang theory would be gutted.

This is rich. You think nuclear fusion doesn't work?

We have tested nuclear fusion experimentally and we have even developed reactors and functional weapons based on it! How can anyone in his right mind claim that we're wrong about it happening in the Sun when we have done every conceivable test to show that it will happen? Gravitational collapse can also release energy (while accelerating rotation; something you obviously don't understand), but the fact is that nuclear fusion DOES happen, and we have proven it beyond any reasonable doubt by making it happen right here on Earth under experimental conditions. As for the other claims in that mountain of nonsense; the Sun is NOT measurably shrinking (try asking NASA about that instead of a creationist website), and several million tons per second is not a big deal for an object as massive as the Sun (do the math; 4 million tons per second x 31.5 million seconds per year x 1 billion years = 1.3E26 kg, or 0.0063% of the Sun's mass).

The linchpin of your absurd "no solar fusion" argument is that neutrinos have not been detected, and that's totally false! We have detected more than enough neutrinos to prove that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion. There is a well-known "neutrino deficit" where the solar neutrino count is not as high as expected, but the existing neutrino count EASILY proves the nuclear fusion model, and more advanced neutrino detectors are currently being deployed in order to increase our understanding of this particle.

Is there no evidence that supports the Big Bang theory? Evolutionists are able to point to only TWO. Here they are:

[1] BACKGROUND RADIATION

NOT EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG

The fact—There is a faint amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It is called background radiation. Since it comes uniformly from all directions, it is believed to exist throughout the universe. It is a very small amount of "heat": in fact, only 2.73o K. above absolute zero (0oK., which is -270o C. or -454o F.).

The theory—Background radiation (also called microwave radiation), first discovered in 1965, is said to be the single, best evidence that the Big Bang occurred. It is said to be the leftover remains, the last remnant, from the Big Bang explosion.

Scientists said that background radiation would prove the theory in four ways: (1) It would come from only one direction—the Big Bang source. (2) It would have the right radiational strength to match the Big Bang mathematical theory. (3) It would emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would not be a smooth radiation.

But we find that, if this is the best evidence that the theorists can produce for their speculation, it surely is weak.

1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation comes from every direction instead of one. The Big Bang theory requires that it come from only one direction—from where the Big Bang occurred. Since its discovery, scientists have been unable to match its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions. Its omnidirectionality tells where the background radiation is coming from: "Background radiation" is actually a slight amount of heat given off by stars throughout the universe. Would they not be expected to emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space?

The Big Bang theory was not a matter explosion in empty space, so stop trying to portray it as one. All of your arguments about the Big Bang treat it as something other than what it is, which is an expansion of spacetime itself, along with everything in it.

2 - The radiation does not fit the theory, for it is too weak. It should be far more powerful than it is. *Fred Hoyle, a leading 20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been much stronger.

Stop quoting Hoyle as an authority; he was well-respected for his time, but that time was long ago, and his arguments have been debunked. Do you even know what Hoyle proposed? He claimed that the universe was a steady-state system in which nothing ever changed and new matter was constantly being generated from a mysterious reservoir in order to replace matter that was flying away. If you seriously want to argue that Hoyle was right and all subsequent astrophysicists have been wrong, you will have your work cut out for you. We have since collected more than enough evidence to show that the universe is not steady-state.

3 - 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. This radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.

Odd how the actual astrophysicists themselves say otherwise.

4 - The spectrum should be far hotter than it is. The heat emitted by the radiation should have a far higher temperature. The radiation should emit a 100oK black body radiation spectrum, which is far greater than the 2.73o K spectrum it now has.

And how did you compute this figure, pray tell?

5 - Background radiation is too smooth. The theory requires that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density fluctuations") in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion. In recent years, some slight variations in smoothness have been detected, but this is still not enough to fit the theory.

Actually, irregularities in the background radiation have been found.

"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," Science 167, p. 1203.

"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.

6 - All of the above points (omnidirectionality, very slight amount of heat, general smoothness, with radiative fluctuations in strength) is what we would expect from radiational heat from the multiplied billions of stars throughout the universe. It would be understandable for all those stars to emit a slight amount of uniform, omnidirectional radiative heat. And we would expect the radiational heat emitted by the stars should, at great distances, show very slight fluctuations. Does not each one send forth both heat and occasional gigantic solar flares into space? If you do not believe stars emit heat into space, then you do not believe the sun keeps you warm.

Do you honestly think astrophysicists cannot distinguish between background radiation and stellar radiation? Are you serious, or are you just being dishonest?

[2] THE REDSHIFT

NOT EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG

OR AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE

The fact—Relatively white light can be split by a triangular prism of glass into all the colors of the rainbow. Using a spectrometer, this can be done to starlight. Dark, vertical bands mark the spectrum at various points. Analyzing these dark bands, the type of elements in each star can be ascertained. Spectral type is a star’s classification— based on its spectrum, surface temperature, and mass. A spectrogram is a photograph of a star’s spectrum. Spectroscopy is the study of spectra.

Ultraviolet is on one end of a spectrum and has a higher frequency and shorter wavelength than visible blue light. Infrared is the other end of the visible spectrum (astronomers call it "red").

Every star is redshifted to some extent (that is, the entire spectrum of that star is moved toward the red end). The farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. This displacement is called the redshift.

The theory—The "Big Bangers" (as scientists call them) theorize that this redshift shows that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang explosion. They base this on the hypothesis that the "speed theory" of the redshift is the only cause of the redshift. This means that if light is traveling toward us, the wavelength is slightly compressed or shortened. This would cause the light to be "blueshifted" (shifted toward the ultraviolet). If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out, which causes a redshift (shifted toward the infrared).

"This redshift, observed in the spectral lines of distant galaxies and interpreted as a Doppler [speed] effect, is the key to cosmology."—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 252.

What causes the redshift? It is quite obvious that the distance of the star from us has something to do with the redshift. Here are FOUR scientific explanations for the redshift, each of which are accepted by various scientists:

• The Speed redshift (also called the Doppler theory of redshift): This would occur if the star were moving away from us. Evolutionists say all the stars are moving away from us, and that there is no other cause for the recorded redshifts.

I hope you realize that Doppler shift is an extraordinarily well-tested concept, and is in fact used by commercial radar systems to track velocities of everything from aircraft to cars..

But there are three other possibilities:

• Gravitational redshifts: The pull of gravity on light rays would cause a loss of energy in the beam of moving light. In 1915, *Albert Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light—and that it would cause a redshift. This was later proved to be true. As light travels toward us from distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to shift toward the red.

"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)."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 50.

Yet, in order to bolster their Big Bang and expanding universe theories, evolutionists ignore gravitational, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss shifts.

I notice you do not mention the MAGNITUDE of this shift. Not surprising, since it would be insignificant compared to the Doppler effect.

EC94b.jpg (202381 bytes) EC94.jpg (80867 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

• Second-order Doppler shift: A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be redshifted. This would occur if the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a common center. We know that every body in the universe is orbiting and, at the same time, moving in some direction with its orbital body. Much of that movement is at right angles to us.

The second-order Doppler shift is much smaller than the classical Doppler shift, since it's just a relativistic effect and has to do with time dilation. At lower velocities, it is unobservable (which is why commercial radar sets only use classical Doppler; it easily overwhelms all other related effects).

• Energy-loss shift: Light waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across long distances. This would nicely explain why the farthest stars from us have the most dramatic redshifts. This is also called the tired-light redshift.

Did you know that the ONLY physicist to promote this view is one Paul Marmet, who is naturally cited by creationist websites all over the web? He calls himself a dissident and portrays opposition to his ideas as doctrine and dogma. But in order to make his theories work, he has also been forced to deny the validity of both quantum mechanics and Einstein's principles of relativity, all of which have been thoroughly tested while his theory has not been tested at all. This is no small problem, particularly since many of YOUR arguments rely on the very principles he must reject in order to sustain his argument.

Also note that he has an interesting habit of taking his arguments to consumer-level publications like "New Scientist" (which you tend to cite as if it's a scientific journal) and publishing them in venues other than cosmology (for example, he has published numerous articles about non-Doppler redshift in IEEE journals, but the electrical engineering community has never been particularly concerned with interstellar phenomena or cosmology in general). Scientific theories are generally not taken seriously until someone can reproduce the experimental results that were used to justify them, particularly when they seek to overturn major physics principles (see the infamous Cold Fusion fiasco). In this case, not only has no one reproduced the experiments, but no experiments were conducted in the first place. Paul Marmet himself says "laboratory experiments could be considered in order to prove actual redshifts", but has not actually performed any such experiments to my knowledge, never mind obtaining third-party verification of his results. So why should any of this be taken seriously, much less be stated as established fact the way you are doing? You're talking about throwing away all of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics despite decades of experimental evidence to support them both, based solely on a paper written by one scientist who hasn't even bothered experimentally verifying his own claims!

[Darth Wong]

Continued:

Big Bang theorists maintain that the speed redshift is the ONLY cause of the redshift,—because they can then say that the universe is expanding outward as a result of the Big Bang.

But the evidence reveals that the speed redshift theory—as the ONLY cause of the redshift—is wrong:

1 - Nearly all the stars and galaxies are redshifted. This fact agrees with the gravitational-loss, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss redshifts. But, if only the speed theory is accepted as the cause of this,—nearly all the universe is moving away from us—our planet! A true expanding universe theory would mean that everything was moving outward from a common center somewhere else, not from our planet. If the Big Bang really occurred, the universe would be rushing outward from where the explosion occurred,—not from our planet! Example: A bomb explodes in outer space, hurling shrapnel in every direction. Some pieces would be flying in our direction while others traveled in other directions. This differential could be measured. Some pieces would be flying toward us, others sideways, and others away from us. If there was a Big Bang, we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts. But, instead, we only find evidence that everything in space is redshifted; that is, everything is supposedly moving away from us. This point disproves both the Big Bang and the expanding universe theory.

I love the way you boldly contradict your own earlier arguments. Earlier you said that an explosion would always produce a particle field where every particle is m moving away from every other particle, and nothing would ever clump together, not even to form simple local aggregates such as stars and planets. Now you say that an explosion would NEVER produce objects which are moving away from each other. This is so typical of creationists; they'll say anything, no matter how absurd, in order to "win". Never do they bother trying to construct a self-consistent model, because of course, no such creationist model exists.

2 - The closest stars and galaxies are the least redshifted, and some of the closest stars are actually moving toward us—yet still seem redshifted. The farther that starlight has to travel before reaching us, the more those two types of shifts would slow it.

3 - There is evidence that photons (light particles) do slow down. This would be nicely explained by gravitational and energy-loss redshifts.

4 - Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift. They are unknown objects which show drastically shifted spectrums toward the red. Yet, if the speed theory is accepted as the cause of those shifts, they would be at impossibly great distances from us. Some have redshifts of 200 and 300 percent! This would equal distances up to 12 billion light-years and recession (moving away from us) speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light! Many astronomers renounced the speed theory when they learned this. But then came the discovery of quasars with even higher redshifts: 300-400 percent! Ultimately, they found three quasars which, according to the speed theory, are moving faster than the speed of light! One of these is eight times faster than the speed of light!

Provide your sources for these claims.

In a desperate attempt to save their theory, the evolutionists recalculated the "Hubble constant," which is the formula for the speed of light. But they are unable to change it. Now they really have a quandary on their hands! As *Vincent A. Ettari wrote, "An increase of 100 percent in the Hubble constant would decrease the computed age of the universe by 50 percent."—And the evolutionists cannot accept that!

Actually, it is possible for part of the universe to be moving away from us at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. But that's beside the point; if you want to see a qualified discussion of non-Doppler redshift arguments as they relate to cosmology, I suggest http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html which is an article written by an actual astronomer and points out some of the problems facing non-Doppler interpretations, while also pointing out some of the inaccuracies in redshift measurement which have been unfairly employed by certain individuals to create the illusion of recognizable patterns while looking through small sample sizes. To quote from his article, any non-Doppler explanation of galactic redshift must:

1) conserve wavelength ratios
2) preserve basic emission- and absorption-line physics
3) not need to conserve energy
4) act as a sort of screen over whole galaxies
5) give systematic redshifts but not blueshifts

These are not small problems, and I might add that they have not been resolved by any known competing explanation.

5 - Light has weight. Some suggest that light and gravity could not affect one another. But *Einstein was right: Light can be pulled by gravity because it has weight. Because light has weight, it can be pulled by matter and push it! Because light has weight, stars it passes pull on it, slightly redshifting it.

"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 [90 kg per 2.6 km2]."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 330.

Do you realize that by quoting Einstein, you are contradicting Marmet? How can you simultaneously quote Einstein and Marmet, who denies the validity of Einstein's theories of relativity as part of his argument? This is exactly the sort of hypocritical cherry-picking inconsistent behaviour I've come to expect from creationists; you don't even try to create a logically consistent argument; you simply try to plunder whatever is convenient from any source, even if you must contradict yourself or quote someone out of context in order to grossly misrepresent what he's really saying.

6 - No one has ever seen a blue-shifted stellar light spectrum. This nicely agrees with the alternate redshift theories (gravitational, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss) of redshift. Even nearby stars, which we think are moving toward us, are very slightly redshifted. But, if the speed theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is actually moving away from us! Why should we be the center of this expanding universe?

In a universe where spacetime itself is expanding, everything IS the center of expansion. Think about it; imagine you're an ant on the surface of a balloon which is being inflated. Is everything around you not moving away from you? But that's beside the point, because your claim is false; there are many nearby stars which are blueshifted. It is other GALAXIES which are generally redshifted, and that's because they are indeed moving away from us.

On pages 67-68 of his book, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov, a confirmed evolutionist, lists 10 reasons why quasars do not agree with the speed theory of light. (We quote that lengthy section on our website.)

Do you believe that by calling Einstein's theories of relativity the "speed theory of light", you will distract readers from noticing that you quote Einstein as evidence in one breath while attacking the validity of his theories in the next? Do you believe that anyone will not wonder if you are misquoting Asimov when you try to portray him as an opponent of accepted cosmology? Quasars are relatively new observations and are not well-understood; this fact has been used to great advantage by creationists who always try to seize upon new areas of research as opportunities. But unless they produce an alternate model of quasars which explains their behaviour while simultaneously explaining all of the physics observations which currently REQUIRE Einstein's relativity, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Nebraska Man Debunked (1928). In 1922 a single molar tooth was found and named Hesperopithecus, or "Nebraska Man." An artist was told to make an "apeman" picture based on the tooth, which went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 (The evolutionists had little else to offer!). *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing Nebraska Man was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find. When paleontologists returned to the site in 1928, they found the rest of the skeleton,—and discovered the tooth belonged to "an extinct pig"! (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 322). In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay.

This is a common creationist misrepresentation of the events surrounding "Nebraska Man", which (contrary to your claims) was never a significant factor in the scientific case for evolution and was in actuality nothing more than a misstep by a handful of researchers. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html for more.

George McCready Price (1870-1963) had a master’s level degree, but not in science. Yet he was the staunchest opponent of evolution in the first half of the 20th century. He produced 38 books and numerous articles to various journals. Price was the first person to carefully research into the accumulated findings of geologists, and he discovered that they had no evidence supporting their claims about strata and fossils. Since his time, the situation has not changed (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 194).

Frankly, this paragraph almost debunks itself. First you admit that he has no actual science background, then you claim that the entire field of geology has not a shred of evidence to support itself and act as though the geologists never tried to respond to this scandalous claim even though any astute reader would expect them to have done so and with great vehemence. By pretending that no one from the entire field of geology has ever tried to respond to this claim, you lay bare your own dishonesty; no one in his right mind could seriously believe that geologists have never even ATTEMPTED to defend themselves from such a far-reaching claim (never mind the fact that you can easily purchase any ordinary geology textbook and see how such a claim is nonsense).

Along with mutations, the study of fossils and strata ranks as the leading potential evidences supporting evolutionary claims. But no transitional species have been found.

Yes they have; the fossil record is full of transitional species. The problem is that creationists refuse to give a definition of "transitional species" which does not rely upon some preposterous misrepresentation of evolutionary theory's predictions. They're expecting mishapen species with half-formed organs and grotesque mid-metamorphosis shapes, when in fact a transitional species would look like any other animal, albeit slightly modified from prior and subsequent species.

Ancient species (aside from the extinct ones) were like those today, except larger

And why do you ignore the extinct ones, which actually make up the majority of the fossil record?

and strata are generally missing and at times switched—with "younger" strata below "older."

That's because tectonic plates move, and "jumbling" occurs in the regions near plate boundaries, as anyone who's ever survived a major earthquake can tell you. That's why good-quality samples are taken away from such hotspots, and it's also why creationists (in their typically dishonest fashion) use such hotspots as the basis for virtually all of their attacks upon geology.

Because there is no fossil/strata evidence supporting evolution, the museums display dinosaurs and other extinct animals as proof that evolution has occurred. But extinction is not an evidence of evolution.

No, alteration over time is, particularly when correlated to migration patterns. Darwin observed this evidence more than a century ago, but sadly, people like you still do not understand his work, never mind the work that followed.

Very Respectfully,
S. J. Booth

As long as you say you are being respectful, I expect you to respond to this E-mail with a complete point-by-point answer, as I have done for you. If you refuse to do so, I will have no choice but to conclude that you are simply another mindless copy-and-paste creationist without the intellectual capacity to actually construct or answer arguments.

Amazing, isn't it? In addition to the usual standard-issue creationist bullshit, he claims that the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion, Einstein's theory of relativity is false, and QM doesn't work.

How the fuck can anyone deny Einstein, QM, and nuclear fusion? We've made fucking weapons of mass destruction based on nuclear fusion! What the fuck does he think made those weapons work? Fairy dust?

[Keevan_Colton]

Also QM underpins the entire area of semiconducters, transistors and thus silicon chips...so...he's saying the science that makes the computer he is using go, doest work...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Damn on a punji stick, you fucking weren't kidding about the 'long-winded' bit.

Or the dumb part either.

[Darth Servo]

I WOULD say he's a long-winded blowhard but as you already pointed out, his stuff is just copy-and-paste from other creationists. Still, thats one long email. I guess this guy goes for the smokescreen tactic and hopes no one will read the whole thing and just say "yep, you were right after all"

We've made fucking weapons of mass destruction based on nuclear fusion! What the fuck does he think made those weapons work? Fairy dust?

Like all creationists his answer will be, "the power of God/Satan"

[Darth Servo]

The problem is the fusion process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, and each square inch of earth’s surface should be hit each second by a trillion neutrinos. Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy (cf. *J.H. Bahcall, Astronomical Journal, 76:283, 1971)

He posts an article from 1971 trying to prove that scientists have been monitoring for neutrinos since the mid 70s without success? Since when is 1971 mid 70s?

[Fire Fly]

It seems to me that his "arguments" are nothing more than one huge cut 'n paste (not to mention a superfulous amount of leaps of logic) and lots of "he said she said". He argues without understanding what he's presenting and then tries to pass it off as if he's a seasoned intellect in the subject matter.

So: intellectual dishonesty, bad logic, and outright lying. Did he make his post so enormously long in an attempt to look like he knew what he was talking about or in an attempt to make it difficult to rebut each of his points? There's so many wrong arguements that it seems he was more or less aiming for "you couldn't dispute this particular argument, therefore I win."

[Surlethe]

Holy motherfucking shit; that was one helluva read. Highlights:

• The gap at mass 8.
• Doppler effect supplanted by gravitational redshift
• Big Bang is a matter explosion

I hope he goes up on the hate mail page.

[Setesh]

Holy motherfucking shit; that was one helluva read. Highlights:

• The gap at mass 8.
• Doppler effect supplanted by gravitational redshift
• Big Bang is a matter explosion

I hope he goes up on the hate mail page.

The dismissal of einstein, QM, and fusion should go on this list, its certainly unique. I can honestly say this is the second time ever I've heard it. (the first was an Arminus clone who dismissed relativity and nuclear science as fake because einstein was a jew. And he didn't mention QM)

Things that just make you proud to be a member of the same species, huh?

[Adrian Laguna]

I'll confess to only skimming the post, my comments:

Not only is this guy lazy by doing a stupid copy and paste job, but he is rather sloppy too. Most of his E-mail is an attack on the Big Bang theory and much of modern physics and then at the end he just adds a bunch of non-sensical attacks on evolution for no apparent reason. It's like he's saying, "Just in case it is not clear that I'm a dumbshit creationist, here are a few Copy & Paste attacks on EVILution."

[Ford Prefect]

• Big Bang is a matter explosion

And that it comes from compacted nothingness no less. Where do these people come from?

Oh, and I have to say that if anyone could actually read all of that, then they either hate themselves or have a much higher tolerance for pain then myself. That drivel was actually causing my brain to throb. It really was that stupid.

[wautd]

That was... a long post

[Manus Celer Dei]

I stopped reading when he claimed that stars cannot exist.

[Zero]

Priceless stupidity. I do only have a basic high school education, and I could see that that fucker was full of shit. How the fuck could you honestly believe that nuclear fusion didn't work? How does that dumb shit think the sun works, then?

[WyrdNyrd]

The Sun works because it's full of angels all mooning earth! The radiant beauty of angel buttocks is so bright, it lights up the whole world!

[Soontir C'boath]

I stopped reading when he claimed that stars cannot exist.

I severely wanted to stop around the beginning when he said black holes don't exist.
This guy is severely outdated.

[Gandalf]

Mr Wong, you have my admiration for wading through that crap. I gave up when he put scientific in quotation marks.

[Molyneux]

Holy fuck, that hurt my brain.
That guy actually came off as dumber than Cartman...ow...he owes me some aspirin for writing that POS.

[Dooey Jo]

You know, that guy is just one step from trying to prove that the Earth is in fact flat. I thought "black holes are just mathematical extremes" was dumb enough, but that to say that stars cannot exist at all

[Braedley]

I stopped reading when he claimed that stars cannot exist.

I severely wanted to stop around the beginning when he said black holes don't exist.
This guy is severely outdated.

I did stop reading when he said blackholes can't exist.
And here's the kicker: He says blackholes can't exist because there is no possible way of gathering empirical data on them. Oddly enough we have a number of methods for detecting blackholes, from the xrays they emmit to their gravitational effect on other stars (take the SMBH at the centre of our galaxy. Another star has been observed to orbit it at a period of about 15 years).

[Akhlut]

I was amazed how he seemed to attack actual evolutionary theory merely as an afterthought, really. And why can't they come up with some better attacks against evolutionary theory? Like, why the hell plants haven't evolved something better than rubisco for carbon fixation or something. It'd still be a weak attack against mountains of evidence, but at least it wouldn't be the same thing that's been argued for at least the past 20 years.

[drachefly]

We have detected more than enough neutrinos to prove that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion. There is a well-known "neutrino deficit" where the solar neutrino count is not as high as expected, but the existing neutrino count EASILY proves the nuclear fusion model, and more advanced neutrino detectors are currently being deployed in order to increase our understanding of this particle.

Actually, those newer detectors were deployed years ago and finished their first measurement run last year. The number of neutrinos detected was within 1% of the value predicted by theory.

[Anguirus]

You know, the fact that this guy knows nothing about cosmology is one thing. but even if the Big Bang theory is wrong:

A) He still knows nothing about cosmology or the Big Bang thery that he's trying to disprove,

B) The theory of biological evolution by natural selection would be unaffected.

What a twit. One thing I'm not clear on. Is he actually saying that observed phenomena like black holes don't exist, or is he trying to get at something like "they only exist because of the active intervention of God?"

If the latter, it's the best thing I've read since the Chick tract that claims that JESUS CHRIST IS CONSTANTLY HOLDING TOGETHER EVERY ATOM OF MATTER THROUGH ACTIVE SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTION.

So...yeah, what a twit. At least he admits that he's too dumb to do anything other than copy and paste.

[Darth Servo]

• Big Bang is a matter explosion

And that it comes from compacted nothingness no less. Where do these people come from?

Its a textbook case of psychological projection. Fundie Christianity teaches that God created the universe ex-nihlo (sp?) or out of nothing and so they assume science agrees with them.

The Sun works because it's full of angels all mooning earth! The radiant beauty of angel buttocks is so bright, it lights up the whole world!

Now, now, lets not stoop to their level of telling falsehoods. He makes it clear that he thinks the sun's energy comes (perhaps exclusively) from gravitational collapse. Everything else is powered by God.

[Metatwaddle]

• Big Bang is a matter explosion

And that it comes from compacted nothingness no less. Where do these people come from?

From the Discworld, of course. Straight from the mouth of Pterry himself: "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." And there's a graphic for it too.