Darwinism - a very good story, just very bad science!
Just as there is no Great and Powerful Oz, there is no proof for evolution as hypothesized by Neo-Darwinists. On this blog I have posted numerous articles explaining why the main talking points of Darwinism are simply hot air, but I will thank an unamed commenter for listing them nicely. What he copied from me will be bolded black. What he says will be normal black. My comments in between in the normal color which is some shade of purple. I use that to differentiate from posted articles and also the quotes that I often blue when copying them.
"Where did irreducibly complex systems come from?"
From systems that weren't irreducibly complex. You can turn the one into the other if you take away the bits that are redundant.
This is nonsense, of course. The system of valves and chambers in a giraffe neck, for instance, must all work together just right to keep a giraffe from passing out when raising his head or exploding his brain when reaching down to get a drink. The bombadier beetle has a sophisticated method of shooting out quick burst from two different places mixing ingredients in mid-air to cause explosions to chase away predators. The e. coli flagellum has never been explained away to the satisfaction of anyone who actually understands the subject. Michael Behe's "Darwins's Black Box" began a debate that has hastened the growth of Intelligent Design organizations and has begun making Darwinism look foolish. There are in fact inumerable irreducibly complex systems and interelationships between organisms that cannot work until every part or partner is in place.
"Where did existence come from?"
Where did your god come from?
God with a capital G created existence. There was no "from" for Him to come from until he invented it. Any freshman philosophy student knows that a Transcendent God is not part of existence but in fact created existence and time (not that they may believe it to be true, but they understand the concept) so you cannot be so dumb as to not comprehend this. As God said to Moses, "I AM." A refresher in the basics is here.
"Where did information come from?"
Information arises spontaneously, given the right preconditions.
It is for such ridiculous claims that I made the Ultimate Information Post available at the top of my links list. Information only arises from intelligence and it is not material in form or substance. Darwinists hate this fact because they now understand that organisms are packed full of so much information they make Cray Supercomputers look lame. You can access Dr. Werner Gitt's online information if you do not wish to purchase his book - In The Beginning Was Information.
By the way, a review of the book is helpful as it quickly summarizes Dr. Gitt's main points, by S. Aramov:
"Where did life come from?"
Life is a spontaneous result of sufficiently-complex, self-sustaining chemical interactions.
Absolutely preposterous! The Law of Biogenesis says otherwise. There are hard chemical barriers to the formation of the so-called building blocks of life, as I have posted about before. In addition, cells only work with the information-packed DNA code and the pre-existing meta-information within the cell plus operating STP Synthase mechanisms going in addition to thousands of other operations going on within cells at one time. Mud does not become man. I do take some time and expose the mythology in several posts such as this one.
"Why do Darwinists pretend evolution is fact when it is in violation of scientific laws and has never successfully overthrown said laws?"
Because it doesn't violate any scientific laws.
Other than the Law of Biogenesis, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Statistics and the Laws of Information for just a start? The only way to assert that Darwinism does not violate scientific laws is to admit that Darwinism is not. Here is a post that shows that Darwinism is in direct opposition to the long-established Laws of Thermodynamics.
"How is it that Big Bang theorists present formulas with 96% of the energy and matter missing and expect us to call it "science?""
All scientific theories are works in progress. Cosmological theory is somewhat more 'in progress' than most.
That answers nothing! If 96% of the matter and energy are not there when you use your big bang model, your model is wrong. That is not a work in progress, it is a desperate attempt to save a hypothesis that does not come close to working. Big bang hypotheses are all flawed badly. They cannot account for either the so-called singularity or how it "made" the Universe. Declaring that all scientific laws are tossed aside for 1 X 10^-43 seconds is truly ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the assertion that the singularity just made itself! At some point the term "mad scientist" should occur to the average student who can see that God making the Universe ex nihilo actually works with no fudge factors. Planck Time and Dark Energy and Dark Matter are nonsensical illusory references to nothing that can be detected, inspected, tested or logically conceived with any intellectual integrity. Occam would cut you with his own Razor!
There are at least 30 major problems with Big Bang Scenarios and at the end of this post I will give you some observations by Jason Lisle after the Shakespeare quote. You might peruse a list from this source as an overview? The proprietor of the blog below may not have a better answer than a Big Bang but he does list most of the primary BB flaws.
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
The mind boggles at your ability to completely ignore science, logic and common sense just to avoid the obvious, which is that God did created a finite Universe which is running downhill, finite organisms which are piling up mutations, stars and planets and moons which are by observation not going to stay where they need to be for too long and cannot have been there very long. I mean, if you do real science of course. You'll find the Darwinists down the hall from science, just turn left at the Fairy Tale division and walk right in. I think the sign above their hall says something like *POOF*?
There. Your Unanswerable Questions have been answered yet again.
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. Macbeth (Act V, Scene V).
The backgroundIn 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint microwave radiation, apparently coming from the most distant observable regions of the universe, and this earned them the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978.1 This Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and has a characteristic temperature.2,3 While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model,4 it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel–time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe.
The problemThe temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.
(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.
The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the ‘horizon’)11 So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe ‘know’ about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the ‘horizon problem’.12 Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to it, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date (see Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’ below).
Summing upThe big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel–time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem.
|1) pushed apart. According to inflation, even though distant regions of the universe are not in contact today, they were in contact before the inflation phase when the universe was small. |
However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. A physical mechanism that could cause the inflation is not known, though there are many speculations. There are also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts—the ‘graceful exit’ problem.2 Many inflation models are known to be wrong—making predictions that are not consistent with observations,3 such as Guth’s original model.4 Also, many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.
Some astronomers do not accept inflationary models and have proposed other possible solutions to the horizon problem. These include: scenarios in which the gravitational constant varies with time,5 the ‘ekpyrotic model’ which involves a cyclic universe,6 scenarios in which light takes ‘shortcuts’ through extra (hypothetical) dimensions,7 ‘null-singularity’ models,8 and models in which the speed of light was much greater in the past.9,10 (Creationists have also pointed out that a changing speed of light may solve light-travel–time difficulties for biblical creation.11)
In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved.
References and notes
References and notes
- Coles, P. and Lucchin, F., Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, p. 91, 1996. Return to text.
- 2.728 K (-270.422°C). Return to text.
- Peacock, J.A., Cosmological Physics, Cambridge University Press, p. 288, 1999. Return to text.
- However, the existence of CMB was actually deduced before big bang cosmology from the spectra of certain molecules in outer space. Return to text.
- Excluding sources in our galaxy. Return to text.
- Peebles, P.J.E., Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, p. 404, 1993. Return to text.
- For convenience, the commonly understood term CMB will be used without implying that the radiation peaked at the same wavelength in all epochs of the model. Return to text.
- Infrared radiation is part of the spectrum of light. Return to text.
- This is an internal inconsistency for the big bang model. It is not a problem for a creation model; God may have created the distant regions of the universe with the same temperature from the beginning. Return to text.
- Misner, C., Mixmaster Universe, Physical Review Letters 22(20):1071–1074, 1969. Return to text.
- Ref. 1, p. 136. Return to text.
- Lightman, A., Ancient Light, Harvard University Press, London, p. 58, 1991. Return to text.