So far, we’ve examined:
- There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.
- There is something greater than myself
- That something set up those absolute moral standards.
- That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
- If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
- If it was created, it had a creation.
- If it had a creation, it had a creator.
- If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
- A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
- There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
- If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.
- It is nearly impossible to know A+B=c if you don’t know the value of A or B
- The same scientist who popularized the Big Bang theory also proposed the Oscillating State theory, which is contradictory
- Red light spectrum shifts may be objects receding from us, gravity bending the light, or objects between us and the star. We cannot say for sure at this time.
- There is not enough background radiation to account for the Big Bang
- radio waves from space are probably just the sounds of comets, stars and planets
- Triangulation to determine the distance of starts is not accurate past a certain point, as the error factor becomes too great
- The laws of thermodynamics prevent the Big Bang or Evolution for that matter to be valid science
- Gambler’s Ruin decrees that sooner or later the gambler loses – so the Big Bang and Evolution should have degenerated into chaos and death long before life arose.
I no longer have the book “the Lost World” by Michael Chrichton, but in that book is a several page long account of the origin of life itself, and the grudging admission that the only scenario which accounts for everything is Creationism. The quote end with the editorialization, “but that’s just plain wrong.” I’d give you the quote, but again, I no longer have the book.
It betrays the mindset of a religious Fanatic caught in a cult, and unable to acknowledge facts you present to them, because it’s alien to their mindset. Similar to a Jehovah’s Witness whom you show the passages in Revelation about the Great Crowd in Heaven, and you ask them, “Where is the Great Crowd?” The answer will be, “On earth.” “But it says heaven right there in the Bible! Where is the Great Crowd?” “On earth.”
And of course, the parable I’ve related before with Carl Sagan and the Hindu woman, who told him very earnestly that the Earth was on the back of a Turtle. “And what’s that turtle stand on?” Sagan asked. “Another turtle.” “And that turtle?”
“You can’t fool me, it’s turtles all the way down!”
That’s the same thing we see with Astronomers arguing in the back room of a planetarium, then going in and telling the School tour group, “56 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny spot, and then exploded in what we call the Big Bang Theory.”
You’ve got scientific problems with the Big Bang, lack of evidence and proof, grave questions as to its validity… and you’re going to go in and LIE to schoolkids about it?
Turtles, all the way down…
It’s like when Gould was challenged about Haekel’s evolutionary art being in school textbooks… and he ADMITTED he’d known for YEARS they were incorrect!!!
If you’re a scientist reading this, and you’re allowing things to be taught you know are not true, I’ve got to ask – where is your integrity?
Scientists were relieved to have accepted the Big Bang theory, as it gave them a chance to finally have an answer, an alternative to “God created the Heaven and the Earth.” Despite knowing it did not answer the questions, and when approached by the laws of thermodynamics, it rapidly fell apart. The only answer? “Creationism, but that’s just plain wrong! There’s turtles all the way down!”
So, now we’ve got subatomic particles hurling through space outward in a Sputnik type fashion away from a common origin source. Somehow, the particles are supposed to form molecules along the way. Shot from a shotgun, I’ve pointed out, flies outward and does not bounce one shot off another – it just flies out. So too would the Big Bang, spewing out subatomic particles. Neutrons, electrons, and protons. Again, the theory does not account for the prompt formation of molecules, which is required for the very next step, the formation of gas clouds.
Gas clouds supposedly formed as the particles slowed. But wait! There’s nothing in space to have slowed the particles! There is NOW, but according to your theory, not yet! So, by the big bang theory, the particles would have just kept flying!
“Well, we know they DID slow down and form molecules because we have them!!!”
MAYBE those molecules are THERE because God MADE them, Mr. Smarty Pants! Under circular reasoning, you should find your argument neatly tucked in there!
“Creationism, but that’s just plain wrong! There’s turtles all the way down!”
Okay, let’s agree that the particles somehow slowed, after agreeing that nothing somehow created matter, and that matter somehow compressed itself into a tiny spot, then SOMEHOW got enough stored energy from absolutely nowhere to make an explosion that defied the laws of science and left absolutely no evidence of it.
“That’s not fair! When you say it, you make it sound stupid!”
It IS stupid! The whole silly idea!
The theory then states that the particles formed a gas cloud (first somehow organizing into gas – hydrogen, and who knows what else – Scientists like to toss around Carbon, Methane and any toxic blend that suits their fancy).
Vance Ferril, author of the Evolution Cruncher, suggests a simple experiment – release cans of gas into a very large room and wait to see if they coalesce in the center of the room. No, they tend to expand and evaporate outwards. So even if a gas cloud did organize by itself magically, the gas cloud would have simply – evaporated. Spread apart. Broke up.
Again, ignoring the fact it’s impossible, let’s pretend it did form a gas cloud and not evaporate.
“well, it had weight and mass.” Yes, I suppose it would have, if we ignore a large number of improbabilities and pretend it did happen. But the weight and mass was insufficient to allow itself to get incredibly dense.
The whole theory rests on the concept that the matter somehow got compacted and exploded. Well, to do that requires a GREAT amount of mass packed into a dense area. That actually involves changing the gas from gases (very light weight in atomic density!) to heavy metals (in the 200 range and higher on the periodic table.)
Basically what that means is the heavy metals can explode if compressed. And we could easily hypothesize gas clouds originating. So by pretending that they start as tadpoles and turn into frogs, we assume the gas stops being gas and compresses into uranium or strontium – an entirely different element altogether.
So, this shouldn’t be hard to prove at all. Let’s fill a chamber with methane, and apply pressure until it makes a brick of strontium. Go ahead. I’ll wait over here while you do it.
Oh, you can’t do it? Hm.
“Creationism, but that’s just plain wrong! There’s turtles all the way down!”
Now for the unexplained parts of your hypothesis…
- name the force that compacted said gas cloud. Gravity and mass is insufficient to do it. Indeed, gravity would actually keep the mass combined into one area, and KEEP it from compressing!
- Name the energy that KEPT it compressed. Where did it come from?
- Where did the energy come from that ignited it into a star?
Vance Ferril in his Evolution Cruncher also has some questions, like “what happened to all the antimatter from the big bang? They should have interacted with all the matter in the universe and destroyed it!
Too many unanswered questions.