User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
Science Disproves Evolution

How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 1

In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2 billion years (b.y.) old. Later, radiometric dating techniques gave much older ages for certain rocks on Earth (1). Obviously, a part of the universe cannot be older than the universe itself. This contradiction was soon removed by devising a rationale for increasing the age of the universe.

Similar problems are now widely acknowledged. If a big bang occurred, it happened 13.7 b.y. ago. If stars evolved, some stars are 16 b.y. old, such as the stars in the globular cluster called M13 (2). Obviously, stars cannot be older than the universe. Also, the Hubble Space Telescope has found distant galaxies whose age, based on big bang assumptions, exceeds the age of the universe (3).

1. Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), pp. 102, 129.

2. Ivan R. King, "Globular Clusters," Scientific American, Vol. 252, June 1985, pp. 79-88.

3. Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., "An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe," Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555-556.

James Dunlop, "A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55," Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581-584.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636

Evolution doesn't concern the age of the universe. It concerns the complexity and diversity of biological life on this planet. We have no reason to believe that evolution isn't occurring elsewhere in the universe, but we don't have any evidence either way. Current estimates are that evolution started about 3.5 billion years ago on this planet. The planet was only in existence about 4 billion years ago. Again, the universe is older than the planet and studying organisms on this planet can't tell us very much about what existed before the planet existed (and the sun started burning). Therefore, I can't imagine any "evolutionist" making claims about the age of the universe. One doesn't have much to do with the other.

Computed star age, red shift, radiometric dating, and other evidence allows us to better understand the age of the universe and the processes that created it. As we learn more, our estimates get better. It's not at all surprising that an estimate of anything from 80 years ago has been replaced by a better estimate, given that we know more know. Generally speaking, the various ways of determining the age of the universe agree with each-other. Note that all such ways of knowing have a range of error, meaning an idea of how accurate the estimate is. It's not appropriate to give an estimate of age without also giving an estimate of error. I don't see error estimates in your numbers. Perhaps you should look them up, as well.

Where there are discrepancies beyond the explained error, it is an invitation to investigate further. Such investigations lead us to better understand the strengths and limitations of the type of evidence. Sometimes, these apparent problems lead us to a deeper understanding of nature itself. Science is not afraid of where the answers lead. They always help us to learn and understand more.

--Don

Of course evoluton doesn't concern the age of the universe..... Beause if you admitted that, you'ed have to answer fundemental questions that would sink your already water laden boat...

Jim

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. Maybe you could be more explicit about what you think the fundamental questions are.

Evolution, as we know it, concerns life on this planet which couldn't have started before the sun started its nuclear reactions, some 4 billion years ago. The universe was formed some 14 billion years ago. I answered that evolution can't tell us much about the origin of the universe because it all predated anything that would have been "recorded" in our evolutionary history. These are different scientific domains dealing with very different questions.

It's like cutting down a tree and wondering why it's 70 rings don't tell you anything about the dinosaurs. The tree wasn't in existence then, so it can't tell you very much about the history before it existed.

--Don

How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 2

Let's suppose that the universe is 13.7 b.y. old. That is not enough time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then transmit their light to Earth. A big bang would have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium--the three lightest chemical elements. Light from the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain much heavier chemical elements such as carbon, iron, and lead--elements that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed with the heavy elements from that exploded debris.

In other words, a big bang would produce only the three lightest chemical elements. Therefore, big bang advocates have struggled to explain the origin of the heavier chemical elements (carbon, oxygen, iron, lead etc.). To squeeze enough hydrogen nuclei together to form some heavier elements would require the high temperatures inside stars. Theoretically, to form elements heavier than iron requires something much hotter--a supernova.

So, if a big bang happened, there would not be enough time afterward to: a. Form the first generation of stars out of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. b. Have many of those stars quickly (4) pass through their complete life cycles then finally explode as supernovas to produce the heavier chemical elements. c. Recollect, somehow, enough of that exploded debris to form the second generation of stars. (Some were quasars thought to be powered by black holes, billions of times more massive than our Sun! d. Transmit the light from these heavy elements to Earth, immense distances away.

4. For this to happen quickly, evolutionists must assume that the first stars were giants, more than a hundred times larger than the Sun. (Theoretically, more massive stars would burn faster.) Thus, textbooks confidently say that the first stars were giants.

No one knows that the first stars were giants. It's a required assumption if stars evolved. In fact, characteristics of the light we should see from the first generation of evolved stars is missing. [See Piero Madau, "Trouble at First Light," Nature, Vol. 440, 20 April 2006, pp. 1002-1003.]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636

Pahu,

I would be happy to answer your questions if you show a gesture of good faith and respond to my answer to your last question. Cutting and pasting from somebody else's web site doesn't lead me to believe you can think for yourself. Prove me wrong and engage me in conversation. Ask a question in your own words. Try it! It's not very hard.

I've already explained to you that star formation doesn't have much to do with biological evolution. If you're starting a new topic, maybe you could start a new thread with an appropriate title. If you disagree, please make a case--if you're able.

Maybe you could save us all the trouble and read some articles from talkorigins.com. There's a whole taxonomy of creationist "arguments" and their responses. Maybe you could post the answer to your own question. I'm sure it's addressed there.

I could possibly give legitimate answers to all your questions. You would just continue to pose new ones without even reading the last response. You clearly don't care about the answer. You're mostly here to waste the time of those reading and responding to you.

Most creationist arguments are arguments from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) whereby the person says, "I can't imagine there is an answer to X, therefore X is impossible." A person's ignorance isn't evidence of anything--except their laziness or stupidity. How about dazzling us with your brilliance instead? Creationists are also famous for ignoring evidence that goes against what they're preaching, which is exactly what I pointed out in my last response.

Please try again.

--Don

Pahu,

Have your read the book: System of Nature (in English or French)?

In it, Baron d'Holbach wrote that the universe was not "created." Before you go on with your discourse, Science Disproves Evolution, I suggest that you read his 1770, two volume, work (if you look hard you may find in online).

"How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is?"

Is that like asking,

"How long do the plumbers say it will take the carpenters to build the house?"

Biologists and Archeologists that study Evolution are not necessarily linked to the ladies and gentlemen that specialize in physics and cosmology.

The proper thing to ask would be, "How old do peer-reviewed Cosmologists say this Universe is?"

And it depends what you mean when you use the word, "Universe." What does Universe mean to you? Generally speaking, most people can not imagine a Universe without their perception because it is all they have ever known.

So, as Siddhartha Gautama might say, 'the Universe lies at your feet and Heaven is at hand, for when you close your eyes for that eternal slumber the whole of the spatiotemporal everything will die with you.'

But I do like one aspect of the Hindu/Buddhists religion. If the universe is osculating (1/3 of the choices, but far less than 33% likely), and if the frequency of this universe is not random, and if all things are caused (destined), then I will type these words and you will read them for an infinity, back to back in between 30 billion years or so.

See, its fun to dream about all that is possible, and tie in little flavorful tidbits of religious thought. That's why I'm not a Scientist (Evolutionary or Cosmology). I'm a Historian. Which is to say that all the information I've come across among my Archeology and Anthropology associates, the date of this planet is accurate (give or take a final adjustment or two).

I'm not sure which is harder to time. The Universe or this Planet? In either case, it's older than the creationists say it is.

It has been reported by credible sources that a group of fundamentalists called the Creation Research Society (CRS) is behind a lot of the creation science. The membership of CRS consists mostly of engineers, chemists, aerospace workers, technicians, and computer specialists. To be a member of CRS one must have an advanced degree in some field of science and sign a statement of faith. The statement begins: "1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the students of nature, this means that the accounts of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths." The statement concludes with other points involving God's direct creation of the Earth and all things in six days, Noah's flood, Adam and Eve, sin, and salvation through Christ.

What legitimate scientist would sign that statement? Also, a degree in engineering, chemistry, or computer science does not qualify anyone to speak with insight and expertise about other fields of science. It only makes sense if the objective is to railroad scientific evidence into conformity with a literal interpretation of the bible by rejecting all scientific knowledge that does not agree with the bible stories. Do they question the bible story that (the sun stood still)? They do question the integrity of science. They also dispute the study of life and human origins (genetics could be very important in finding cures for diseases.) Faith has never cured a disease! The real reason they attack science is to slow the inevitable growing skepticism of religion by the masses. In order to protect certain interests.

The earth is, and the universe is possibly fifteen billion years old. The universe may have existed ten billion years before the earth, but according to the biblical description of creation the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created at the same time. As a matter of fact, according to the Bible, the earth itself existed from the beginning, whereas the stars, sun, and moon were created on the fourth day.

Because they failed to have evolutionary theory banned from education fundamentalists are trying to introduce their religion (taught as creation science) that is the biblical version of creation (it is not science). This sleight-of-hand trick has failed to deceive scholars who basically know the religious nature of creationism, but they have created some stupendous scientific terminology. Because they have no convincing arguments for creationism they attack any unknown component of science while they mislead some people that the bible has all the answers. We don't need any stinking scientists? However, the Creationists do not raise any legitimate doubts.

SOME OF THEIR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE FULL-OF-IT:

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy (disorder) is always increasing. Since order does not arise out of chaos, evolution is therefore false.

SCIENCE - This ARGUMENT conveniently ignores the fact that you can get order out of disorder if you add energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the Earth's living systems and allows them to evolve. The engineers know this. The mustard seed in the bible tree of bible error does not create a great tree, but the acorn does. From the less complex acorn by addition of energy a great tree grows. From the Sun, so sunlight, via photosynthesis, provides the energy input that propels evolution. In the sense that the Sun is losing more energy than the Earth is gaining, entropy is increasing. After death, decay sets in, and energy utilization is no longer possible. What does represent an increase in entropy, as biologists have pointed out, is the diversity of species produced by evolution.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - The small amount of helium in the atmosphere proves that the Earth is young. If the Earth were as old as geologists say, there would be much more helium, because it is a product of uranium decay. Helium, used to suspend blimps in the air, is a Very light gas and simply escapes into space; like hydrogen, it cannot accumulate in Earth's atmosphere to any great extent. The rate of decay of Earth's magnetism leads to the calculation that Earth was created about 10,000 years ago.

SCIENCE - The Earth's magnetic field does indeed decay, but it does so cyclically, every few thousand years, and the motion of the liquid core of the Earth is constantly renewing it. The "fossil magnetism" recorded in ancient rocks clearly demonstrates that polar reversals (shifts in the direction of Earth's magnetic field) have occurred both repeatedly and irregularly throughout Earth's history; the calendar of these reversals was established over two decades ago, and quickly became the linchpin in the emerging theory of plate tectonics and continental drift.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - If evolution were true, there would be transitional fossils, but there are none; therefore, evolution did not occur.

SCIENCE - There are many transitional fossils, including the ape-human transitional form, Australopithecus. Eusthenopteron shows marvelous intermediate characteristics between the lobe-finned fishes and the amphibians. The transitional fossils between amphibians are so various and so intermediate that it is difficult to define where one group ends and the other begin. Archaeopteryx (most primitive bird known) is clearly intermediate between reptiles and birds. In spite of such reptilian affinities as a long bony tail, toothed jaws, and clawed wings, creationists declare that because Archaeopteryx had feathers, it was a bird, not a transitional stage between reptiles and birds. Having no explanations of their own, the creationists attempt to deny the transitional fossils out of existence.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - Fossils seem to appear out of nowhere at the base of the Cambrian; therefore, they had to have been created.

SCIENCE - The earliest microfossils date back, in fact, to the Precambrian, about 3.5 billion years ago. A variety of multi-cellular life appears in the fossil record about 670 million years ago, which is 80 million years before the Cambrian. The Cambrian does seem to explode with fossils, but that is simply because the first shelled organisms, such as the brachiopods and the trilobites, date from the Cambrian; their resistant shells fossilize far more readily than their soft-bodied ancestors of the Precambrian. What is more, Precambrian rocks are so old that they have been subjected to a great deal of deformation. We are thus fortunate to have any Precambrian fossils of soft-bodied animals. Still more fossils are discovered every year, and each one further weakens the creationist position.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - All fossils were deposited at the time of the Noachian flood.

SCIENCE - There is not one shred of evidence in the geological record to support the claim of a single, worldwide flood. Geological formations such as mountain ranges and the Grand Canyon require millions of years to form, and the fossil record extends over several billion years. The time required for continents to have drifted into their present positions is immense. A single flood lasting months or years cannot account for these things. There are places where advanced fossils lie beneath more primitive fossils. Earth movements such as faulting and thrusting produce these discontinuities; the older rock has simply been pushed over on top of the younger rocks, as we sometimes see even along highway cuts. These places are easily recognized and explained by geologists. They cannot be explained by the creationists' belief that all fossils are the result of the Noachian flood. Thus the creationists' attempt to fault evolutionary theory by these means ends up demolishing one of their own pet claims.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - The chances of the proper molecules randomly assembling into a living cell are impossibly small. Simulation experiments have repeatedly shown that amino acids do not assemble randomly.

SCIENCE - Their molecular structure causes them to be self-ordering, which enhances the chances of forming long chains of molecules. Simulation experiments also demonstrate that the formation of prebiotic macromolecules is both easy and likely and does not require DNA, which is a later step in the evolution of proteins. The stepwise application of cumulative natural selection acting over long periods of time can make the improbable very likely.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - Dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in Cretaceous limestone at Glen Rose, Texas. Therefore, dinosaurs could not have preceded humans by millions of years.

SCIENCE - The "man-tracks" seen by creationists stem from water-worn scour marks and eroded dinosaur tracks are perceived as human footprints, and obscure the footpads of the dinosaur tracks with sand and photograph what remains, the dinosaur's toe impressions. When reversed, the tip of the dinosaur toe or claw becomes the heel of a "human" print. These prints are shown in poor-quality photographs in creationist literature and films. Because the stride length (7 feet) and foot length (3 feet) exceeded any possible human scale, the fundamentalists call these the giants mentioned in Genesis. In addition to the tracks, there are other prints circulating in this area of Texas. In fact, carved footprints were offered for sale to tourists in curio shops during the Great Depression. These caught the eye of the paleontologist Ronald T. Bird, who recognized them as fakes, but they eventually led him to the legitimate dinosaur footprints at Glen Rose. This area has since been extensively studied by paleontologists, and numerous species of reptiles and amphibians have been catalogued. No genuine human tracks exist there.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - Biologists have never seen a species evolve.

SCIENCE - On a small scale, we certainly have. Using allopolyploidy and artificial selection, scientists have manufactured crop plants and horticultural novelties that are reproductively isolated from the parental stock. In addition, one can see stages of incipient speciation in nature by looking at clinical variations and subspecies, that is, gradual change in the characteristics of a population across its geographical range. Major evolutionary changes, however, usually involve vastly greater time periods; we cannot watch such changes, but we can deduce them by inference from living and fossil organisms.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - Evolution, too, is a religion, and requires faith.

SCIENCE - Creationists are beginning to admit that their "science" depends on faith, but they add, so dose evolution. Biologists do not have to believe that there are transitional fossils; we can examine them in hundreds of museums around the world, and we make new discoveries in the rocks all the time. Scientists do not have to believe that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old; we can test the age of the Earth, Moon, and meteoric rocks very accurately. We do not have to believe that protocells can be easily created from simple chemicals in the laboratory; we can repeat the experiments with comparable results. We can also create artificial species of plants and animals by applying selection, and we can observe natural speciation in action. That is the big difference between science and religion. Science exists because of the evidence, whereas religion exists upon faith -- and, in the case of religious fundamentalism and creationism, in spite of the evidence.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - The number of humans today would be much greater if we have been around as long as evolutionists say we have.

SCIENCE - This is a very ingenuous assumption about birth and death rates, and the abundance of early humans, and assumes that populations are always growing, when in fact most animal populations are at a level somewhat lower than the carrying capacity of their environment. Such stable populations remain stable for long periods of time, held in check by environmental constraints. It is only our own species' recently acquired ability to modify our environment that allowed our numbers to get dangerously out of control. Because we have become masters of the earth but not good stewards of the earth (ya know global warming and tree huggers) that may yet do us in.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - The current rate of shrinkage of the Sun proves that the Earth could not be as old as geologists say, because the surface of the Sun would have been near the Earth's orbit a few million years ago.

SCIENCE - Stars, such as our Sun, have life cycles during which events occur at different rates. The characteristics of a newly formed star are quite different from those of stars near death. Astronomers can see these differences today by observing young, middle-aged, and old stars. By now, we know that it has not been shrinking at a constant rate.

CREATIONISTS' ARGUMENT - The influx of meteoric dust from space to earth is about 14 million tons per year. If the Earth and Moon were 4.5 billion years old, then there should be a layer of dust 50 to 100 feet thick covering their surfaces.

SCIENCE - This estimate of dust influx is simply out of date. Space probes have found that the level of dust influx from space is about 400 times less than that. Do you think the astronauts would have been allowed to land on the Moon if NASA thought they would sink into 100 feet of dust?

CREATIONISTS ARGUMENT - Prominent biologists have made statements disputing evolution.

SCIENCE - Biologists debate mechanisms and tempo of evolution. They do not deny the fact of evolution. The debate reflects the vigorous growth of a major scientific concept; it is what goes on routinely in all healthy, growing branches of scholarship. Creationists falsely portray this as a weakness in the theory of evolution.

Linda, you have given an impressive list of reasons why evolution should be accepted as fact verses the creation viewpoint. To answer each of your assertions point by point would require a book, which I am not allowed to share because apparently my attempt to share facts is considered spam and not allowed. I will attempt to share the following:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe. 4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing. 5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing. 6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause. 7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural. 8. Life exists. 9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis). 10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause. 11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

"Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes" (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

[From "Reincarnation in the Bible?"]

To: Pahu I will give you credit for your response, because most theists just "assume" things and call it "the truth" and never answer rebuttals. I have some questions for you, and then I will address the only things that were not 'specific' in my original response. Question: Science answers questions using laws (physical or natural laws). If scientific researchers came to a question that they didn't have an answer for they can't just conclude that god did it (one answer fits all). That doesn't work for scientists they would be fired. They would have to prove that there is a god. I say they would have to prove that a complex 'god' that came from nothing existed. (Scientist can't go into fantasyland for explanations and neither can anyone else.) Everything that exists is either matter or energy. Did god make the Universe from something or nothing? If the apologists can't tell us what god is made of or what god made the Universe from than they haven't answered anything.

Those scientists who do not believe that history began on "creation week" have developed theories. One is 'The Cell Theory' and it is not the only theory, because this lead to other theories (that's how science works). There are very different theories on the definition of Life. The Theory of Negentropy (Life must comply with the laws of physics as it exists in the physical world.) This theory is based on the observation that living organisms possess the ability to remain in a state of order, or low entropy, against the natural tendency for all things to decay into disorder, or high entropy. Living things feed on matter "negative entropy" and use them to avoid decay. The phenomenon of resisting decay towards greater entropy can be seen in generally accepted to be non-living materials too. Crystals have the ability to create "order from disorder" and "reproduce" other crystals similar to themselves if a piece of the crystal is placed in a suitable environment. In fact the existence of a crystal in Life, which helps propagate the "genetics" of the Life form. This suggestion is said to have inspired the discovery of DNA later on. The Theory of Negentropy did propose a crucial point that is often overlooked, and that is that however "mysterious" Life may seem, we are still physically composed of nothing more than the same molecules also found in non-living matter. Just as with everything else, these molecules must comply with the laws of the Universe.

So, 'apologists' who try to prove scientists wrong confiscate Evolution or the Big Bang theory (scientific theory) to prove that there is a god. Scientists know that nobody can prove anything about god, they just find answers to questions that are real for very good reasons. That has lead to gene therapy and the discoveries of things that have assisted us in the exploration of space. These discoveries have made substantial difference in scientific research and people's lives.

The "Big Bang" Theory - The Cosmic Microwave Background is incontrovertible evidence that the Universe experienced a "Big Bang". In 1965 two radio astronomers in the United States rediscovered Cosmic Background Radiation registered a signal in their radio telescope that could not be attributed to any precise source in the sky. It apparently came from everywhere with the same intensity, day or night, summer or winter. They concluded that the signal had to come from outside our Galaxy (it came from the origin of the Universe.) Scientists considered their discovery as solid evidence for the 'Big Bang' theory. Today, the Big Bang model is still the only model that is able to convincingly explain the existence of the CMB. According to this model, the Universe started with a very dense and hot phase that expanded and cooled itself; for several hundreds of thousands of years the temperature was so high that neutral atoms could not form. Matter consisted mostly of neutrons and charged particles (protons and electrons). Electrons interacted closely with the light particles, and therefore light and matter were tightly coupled at that time (that is, light could not travel for a long distance in a straight line). Light could therefore not propagate and the Universe was opaque. It took about 300 000 years for the Universe to cool down to a temperature at which atoms can form (about 3000°C). Matter then became neutral, and allowed the light to travel freely: the Universe became transparent. The relic of that 'first light' is the CMB (this background radiation had in fact been predicted years earlier by George Gamow as a relic of the evolution of the early Universe. This background of microwaves was in fact the cooled remnant of the primeval fireball - an echo of the Big Bang.) The Cosmic Microwave Background is the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe. This 'fossil' radiation (the furthest that any telescope can see) was released soon after the 'Big Bang'. Scientists consider it as an echo or shock wave of the Big Bang. Over time, this primeval light has cooled and weakened considerably; nowadays we detect it in the microwave domain. The ESA's Planck mission will detect this first light, which is also the 'oldest' radiation detectable and carries information about our past and future. By observing it, Planck will be seeing the Universe as it was almost at its origin. Planck is the first European mission to study the birth of the Universe. Planck will help provide answers to one of the most important sets of questions asked in modern science - how did the Universe begin, how did it evolve to the state we observe today, and how will it continue to evolve in the future? Planck's objective is to analyze, with the highest accuracy ever achieved, the remnants of the radiation that filled the Universe immediately after the Big Bang, which we observe today as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Bible prophecy - People who live in fear of myths that are not true should look for answers in more than one book (by the way you don't think the bible fell from heaven in the form of one book?) The Bible is not the inerrant, inspired, (word of god) it's the work of liars and forgers. Bible Prophecy -did not come from ancient texts or those who could interpret the words of ancient texts. "The Abomination of Desolation" in Daniel actually refers to the Selucid King Antiochus Epiphanes, who plundered the Jewish Temple and sacrificed an unclean swine to the Greek God Zeus in 170BC. This is historical fact agreed upon by most reliable historians and Biblical scholars. The ignorant clergy turned it into biblical prophecy "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains" (Mark 13:14)

Linda,

You do realize that this person is cutting and pasting apologetics from other sources. I doubt he's reading either what he's posting or what you're writing back. He has never responded in his own words to anything I've posted here.

I consider him to be an inconsiderate jerk who is mostly out to waste the time of people on this forum. He is pretending to have a dialog, but he's unable to carry his side. I don't believe he's learning, but instead exhibiting Skinnerian stimulus response behavior.

He is complaining about the spam filter. I suspect it's because he's trying to paste big sections of web sites or formatted text from other sources with lots of formatting characters. His complaint helps to make my case.

Beware of this troll.

To: Don - Quote - "Linda, You do realize that this person is cutting and pasting apologetics from other sources. I doubt he's reading either what he's posting or what you're writing back. He has never responded in his own words to anything I've posted here. I consider him to be an inconsiderate jerk who is mostly out to waste the time of people on this forum. He is pretending to have a dialog, but he's unable to carry his side. I don't believe he's learning, but instead exhibiting Skinnerian stimulus response behavior. He is complaining about the spam filter. I suspect it's because he's trying to paste big sections of web sites or formatted text from other sources with lots of formatting characters. His complaint helps to make my case. Beware of this troll."

I realize a lot of things (he gave me his references) but I don't think it was a waste of time for us (all the people who answered him long before I did.) I don't care whose arguments they are they can and should be answered. The intent should be giving an alternative view, not just exchanging insults (even though sometimes we all do that.) Nevertheless, I do think the guy can read, but he obviously does not want to first read and then investigate 'the book' before he deems it correct or consistent with known facts. There are plenty of these same kinds of arguments all over the web, message boards, and on radio/ tv broadcasts.

I don't think it is a waste of time to answer the apologist's arguments because few skeptics can give rebuttals at their lectures where apologists are mobbed like rock stars by banjo picking rednecks. It's the apologists themselves who should be apologizing for wasting everybody's time lying to the world about the accuracy of the bible. Maybe it was a waste of time for Pahu, but it wasn't for me. I went through a vast amount of material to find out what the facts are and what Europe is doing to get the answers (it was fun).

Pahu - Quote - "Linda, you have given an impressive list of reasons why evolution should be accepted as fact verses the creation viewpoint. To answer each of your assertions point by point would require a book, which I am not allowed to share because apparently my attempt to share facts is considered spam and not allowed. I will attempt to share the following:"

TO: Pahu: - To really answer questions about scientific theories (especially one's as difficult as The Big Bang or Evolution) it would take reading and studying many books over a long period of time (and only then could you come to an educated conclusion. The work that scientists do is extremely important and it makes me very angry to see some of the dimwits (who will never contribute a thing to civilization) going for their jugular because science is their enemy. Scientists try to answer questions about how things came to be the way they are, but apologists never really do (god was always there and he did it all.) Pahu - I'll ask again. - (If something cannot come from nothing) and without going into 'phantomology' (which cannot be proven) what is god made of, how did he create everything, and what did he make it from?

People should look at many sources on these issues, and then challenge the 'apologists' with your findings? See how long you get to talk. When I look for the (facts of the matter) I read a lot of material before I come to any definitive answers, and many times my opinion changes drastically. Imagine how long it took the scientists to actually do the work. Creationist's attempts at science are usually so comical and disputable that real scientists would find it (jaw-droppingly) absurd. Most of the apologist's arguments wouldn't even make a good science fiction flick. Come on now 'Left Behind'? I despise apologists for the same reason I hate Christian Rock (it doesn't.) It's Nazi ideology powered by rock music. It's a gross injustice for apologists to make science their 'scapegoat' and encourage disdain for scholarship, and complain that scientists think they know more than the "almighty" by those who have never done anything worthy of the worshiping they are getting from the (flat earth crowd). Research scientists have found cures for diseases that have saved many peoples lives (while slapping people on the head to cure them has done nada.) I hope that a lot of people read this and think twice before they waste their time on anything else as lame and pointless as (the war on science) that they could possibly spend their time forming a 'movement' around.

Pahu - Your responses are severely deficient. You didn't answer any of my detailed arguments you simply assume that you won. The apologist's were out dated or they were taken from controversy that has been resolved in the scientific community. It seems that the apologists need to update their information. Then you go into a rant on your beliefs, which is extraneous to any scientific discussion. Do you understand why? You are claiming that Science Proves Evolution wrong. Then you need to prove that claim. I gave a point by point explanation. You can't put 'a book' on there is no excuse for not giving a point by point explanation because you are the one making all the claims.

Pahu - Quote - "From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction."

My Answer: You can't raise an argument with science and then try to use scripture to prove it. Here is a scientifically valid answer:

Europhysics News (2001) Vol. 32 No. 6 Current issues in cosmology Joseph Silk Department of Physics, Nuclear and Astrophysics Laboratory Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom

The Hubble Space Telescope, did the situation converge. High precision observations of key distance calibrators such as Cepheid variable stars and supernovae in distant galaxies resulted in a consensus that Hubble's constant is (70 ± 7) km/Mpc/s, a value that poses no problem whatsoever in reconciling the oldest stellar ages with the age of the Universe. The canonical cosmological model has an age of 14 Gyr. The cosmological age is consistent with two independent age determinations for the Milky Way galaxy. Stellar evolution applied to the oldest globular cluster stars gives an age of 13 Gyr, and radioactive dating from measuring abundances of U and Th in extremely metal-poor halo stars yield an age of 12 Gyr.

There are also cosmological measures of the Hubble constant that are independent of distance. One utilizes the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect on galaxy clusters to combine X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters with the microwave (Rayleigh Jeans) decrement in the cosmic blackbody background radiation due to traversal across the hot intracluster gas by the microwave photons to give an absolute distance measurement. Yet another approach makes use of the cosmic microwave background radiation anisotropies, where the height of the first acoustic peak is sensitive to the Hubble constant, given a cosmological model. There is complete consistency between the various Hubble constant determinations. There is no age controversy for the Big Bang.

My Responses - I compared every claim that you gave made by apologists with every scientific known answer. Your responses did not dispute them. Even though 'Science Proves Evolution Wrong.' I compared Scientists & Apologists - They would have to prove that there is a god. I say they would have to prove that a complex 'god' that came from nothing existed. (Scientist can't go into fantasyland for explanations and neither can anyone else.) Everything that exists is either matter or energy. Did god make the Universe from something or nothing? If the apologists can't tell us what god is made of or what god made the Universe from than they haven't answered anything.

Your claim that Science Proves Evolution wrong is wrong. You haven't given one shred of evidence for proof of anything that you have said.

I think your boat ~sunk~.

You won this thing long ago. Move on to the next thing. This guy is not gonna be answering this.

To: Pahu Well, if "Science Disproves Evolution" I would think you would answer what she had to say on that?

"Biologists do not have to believe that there are transitional fossils; we can examine them in hundreds of museums around the world, and we make new discoveries in the rocks all the time. Scientists do not have to believe that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old; we can test the age of the Earth, Moon, and meteoric rocks very accurately. We do not have to believe that protocells can be easily created from simple chemicals in the laboratory; we can repeat the experiments with comparable results. We can also create artificial species of plants and animals by applying selection, and we can observe natural speciation in action. That is the big difference between science and religion. Science exists because of the evidence, whereas religion exists upon faith -- and, in the case of religious fundamentalism and creationism, in spite of the evidence. "

This guy/girl has been trolling messageboards around the internet posting the same tripe. To discuss anything with them is an extremely futile effort. A quick google search turns up their trail of mind-numbing junk:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=pahu+science+disproves+evolution&btnG=Google+Search

Linda has done what needs to be done, and that is to show the "apologists" that they haven't proven anything wrong. Linda has shown that they can't fool some people. They are not giving proficient scientific answers, and the people who believe them don't know what one even is. They can't disprove "evolution" or the "big bang theory." I think she has done a great job of showing them up for the quacks they really are!

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv