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
I’ve gotten all this from an introduction and an examination of the rudimentary points of the Big Bang. Already Science is not doing very well. What the Big Bang theory boils down to is this – the universe has either been here always, or was created, or created itself (?) or never existed in the first place.
Option 4 is the pet theory of Buddhists and Christian Scientists (who are neither Christian nor Scientists), who believe the universe is an illusion. We can pretty much dismiss it.
Nobody seems to accept option one. The stars and comets and planets appear to be moving. So someone or something set them in motion. See Newton.
What we disagree on is that Science decided the universe created itself. The basic premise of the Big Bang theory is that 15 trillion years ago, nothing decided to explode and become everything.
The second law of thermodynamics is that all objects break down and disorganize. It was the opinion of nuclear scientist Robert Faid that the second law of thermodynamics not only disproved the Big Bang, but made a mockery of it. How does non-existent matter become existent matter?
This is the issue we can’t resolve. It’s like talking to someone who repeats the instructions, “One – put car in drive, three – arrive at destination.” Wait, we’re missing step two??? “One – put car in drive, three – arrive at destination.” But we’re missing step two!!! “One – put car in drive, three…”
Where did the universe come from? “At the beginning of time, all the matter of the universe was compressed into a tiny dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.” Wait, you missed step two! Where did that matter and mass come from? Where did the rules of nature come from, the laws of thermodynamics?
“All the matter of the universe…” But wait! You missed step two!
Let’s agree to ignore for now the very major flaw in their non-explanation for the creation of the universe, which in their theory must already be created (and therefore doesn’t explain ANYTHING!). There’s a BANG. According to the theory, everything flies out like the shot from a shotgun, a stream of neutrons, protons and electrons. Somehow they organize into gas and…
Wait a minute. That violates the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of mass/energy. According to that, energy is required to get anything moving. Things cannot move on their own. Second, things tend to dissolve, come apart according to the second law of thermodynamics.
So for any particles to form into gas would require self-organization. That’s an impossibility. It would require external stimuli or energy to assemble the gas clouds from the simple atoms. Atoms cannot just on their own form molecular structure. Even if nothing did become everything and went KAPOW!, all you’d get is objects, subatomic particles flying off into space forever.
The theory claims they would ricochet off one another, and eventually form into spirals, which due to their charges would form them into molecules. Which held together despite the second law of thermodynamics.
This is the same kind of faulty thinking used by geneticists, who say silly things like “get a million chimpanzees and give them a million typewriters, and they’d produce Shakespeare after a million years.”
No, that’s an exceptionally faulty analogy, one that statisticians despise. Knowing the ferocity of the adult Chimpanzee, it’s more likely they would break the typewriter, urinate on it, bite it, or just bang on it with their fists, and not fingers. Indeed, someone tried it briefly to see what the results would be. The answer? fifteen ruined typewriters. It seems Chimpanzees are phenomenally strong.
“well, Chimpanzee’s just miss out on being humans.” Yes, except for the fact that chimps are chimps and humans are humans. But we’ll get there. I’m going to absolutely shred that oft-repeated argument when we get there. Except by the time I get there, nobody’s going to take evolution even remotely seriously.
And apparently, there’s something called Gambler’s Ruin, which states that it seems the odds are even, 50-50 when a gambler is going to flip a coin or spin a roulette wheel. However, Gambler’s Ruin states there’s a built-in error or failure factor. The gambler SHOULD have even odds… but the laws of averages (which seem to resemble the laws of thermodynamics, by the way) say that the gambler ALWAYS loses in the long run if they don’t stop. Gambler’s Ruin is one of those code words Evolutionists love to toss around. They haven’t seemed to pick up on the fact that it spells disaster for their theory. If the gambler doesn’t quit, the Gambler’s Ruin theorum dictates that the whole thing dissolves into chaos. It says that if by some amazing miracle life did begin organizing itself…
…it would after a short period of time dissolve into dead matter. Ruin sets in. Long before we could get to the insect stage or the fish stage, the genetic ruin should set in. The species should die.
And long before that, the self-organizing behavior of atomic elements that defies description, logic and all known science should have broken down. The whole thing could not continue unabated, organizing itself without external stimuli, for a thousand years… let alone a billion.
So, if there’s a billion electrons, neutrons and protons, all flinging along like shot from a shotgun (which by the way, tends to just fly along on its trajectory until momentum is lost and it falls to the round… or encounters an object). and let’s say formed a hydrogen molecule,
Now, we have another issue. What (or who) decided which atoms form which molecules? What random force caused all the atoms to form hydrogen? Why did some form hydrogen and some oxygen? What prevented water from forming. Oh, well, apparently water molecules supposedly formed too…
We keep running into what some have called the Fingerprint of God – the external evidence that the Universe could not have simply created itself. There’s too much organization and external events to suggest anything besides a divine creation.
The theory states that the chaos of the Big Bang somehow collected into masses of gas clouds that coalesced and compacted into masses, which eventually started in an explosion nad formed a star. So, these proto-stars would then have needed to explode AGAIN, to create the higher elements.
So, the statistical anomalies that would have had to take place to form the first starts, supposedly repeated again after it didn’t work the first time? The whole thing sounds more than far-fetched. It sounds impossible.
especially after these proto-stars have never been seen. “Well, Jupiter’s a proto-star…” No, not really, as it is composed of the very heavier elements you say the proto-stars had to generate.
We haven’t even gotten to the formation of the planets yet, and ALREADY we’ve got so much wrong with the theory, it’s mind-boggling! This is why so many scientists have dismissed the Big Bang. To advocate something many scientists have dismissed when you don’t believe it yourself is dishonest, and utterly without integrity. Apparently, used car salesmen have far more integrity than do many scientists.
- The Case Against Evolution (scientistsforjesus.wordpress.com)