Faith versus Evidence. Darwinism versus Creationism. Part Two is WHERE DID EVERYTHING COME FROM?????

Let us make this as clear cut as possible.   I will present the polar opposites in the Evolution versus Creation debate.   I will present the Young Earth Creationist position, which includes accepting the Bible as being true when it speaks to science and history.  In opposition, I will present the Darwinist position as the Naturalistic Materialistic Atheistic Humanistic Evolutionist side.   These are the North and South poles of the world of Origins as well as many facets of operational science.   I will consider the relative positions of both sides and show the reader which side depends more on Faith and which side relies more on science.   We should probably start with a few introductory remarks to be very clear about the post.  

 1)  We will rely on Francis Bacon's version of the Scientific Method.   Bacon's method was a clarification of the method of Roger Bacon, who was the student of the great Robert Grossteste, who proposed using the investigative way of studying the Universe rather than the axiomatic method that was popular during the Middle Ages.   Rather than starting with the thoughts of great philosophers of the past and, with their thoughts as guides, opining applications and corrolaries to such thoughts.   So the inductive method was accepted as superior to the deductive method of investigation.   BUT naturalism was NOT part of the Scientific Method.   Those who devised it were Creationists who saw that it made sense that a Universe created by a Logical God and originally to be ruled by man must be able to be understood and manipulated by mankind.  NO NATURALISM WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE IMPOSED ARTIFICIALLY.   You see, while we can only investigate in the present and within a natural world, both sides want to make predictions and declare their beliefs about what has happened in the unobservable past.  Since neither side has a time machine, both sides have to leave this time-space continuum to make faith statements about past events.   Therefore both Naturalists and Supernaturalists must needs leave the natural world with their thoughts and assertions to travel within their minds back to past.

 2) Any Scientific Law that has never been disproved will remain law.  I will not accept any arguments that claim that the Laws of Thermodynamics have ever been demonstrably broken or that the Law of Biogenesis has ever been broken.   There is no evidence that would support removing the "Law" from these laws.   

 3) I will be willing to argue evidence.   But commenters have to bring evidence to the table.  Simply either saying "nyuh-uh" will not be acceptable.   Also, the evidence-free appeal to some opinion held by some Darwinist somewhere is not acceptable.   Simply saying that "Joe Blow has an interesting hypothesis" is not evidence. Sure, the check is in the mail!  Your wishful thinking is not evidence.  Bring evidence or be ignored and actually spotlighted.   Trust me, commenter spotlighting has happened in the past and it is going to be done again in the very near future.   So if you do not want empty arguments on page one and torn to shreds, do not make empty arguments.  Are we clear?

 So we will start with the first fundamental question, which is, WHERE DID EVERYTHING COME FROM?????

 DARWINISTS argue from faith and Creationists argue from evidence when considering the origin of the Universe.

 Creationists - We have strong evidence for the Creator God having created the Universe. 
1) God left us an eyewitness account in the Bible.   God not only tells us in what order He created, He even tells us why.   So the historical document known as the Bible gives us evidence for God as Creator.

 2) The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us God or another Supernatural Creator had to be the First Cause.  Since no matter is being created or destroyed in the natural world, the natural world could not make itself.   If the natural world cannot create itself, then by definition the Supernatural had to create the natural.  A naturalist who must depend on a long series of unexplained miracles with no source for the miracles is not depending upon evidence, is he?  But we can stand on the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 3) Real life observation.   We see that we have a creative side.  We write songs and poems,  create paintings, carvings and other works of art.  We invent various mechanisms to accomplish things more efficiently than simply using our arms and legs.   We see that created things have a creator.  Da Vinci was very creative and designed many devices as well as numerous works of art.  Mozart was a wonderful writer of music.   George Washington Carver not only made the peanut a versatile and useful source of many tasty edible things, he was simply an inventive guy who came up with all sorts of ideas.  Edison and Tesla were certainly inventors, as were the Wright Brothers.  We do not see symphonies or automobiles *poof* mysteriously into existence.   We should not expect the Universe to have *poofed* into existence, either.  Logic and observation tell us that creative beings create and nothing creates itself.

 Darwinists - They have only faith positions for the existence of the Universe.
1) The Laws of Thermodynamics?  They ignore them and claim that some "singularity" with no known caused exploded by no known means and said explosion had to be controlled by no one to produce elements that should not have formed.   That is faith!

 2) The equations that purport to represent the Big Bang do not add up.   You remember Algebra class?   Remember that an equation has two sides of the = sign that are equal?   Well, the Big Bang equations are 96% unobserved matter and energy.  In my high school Algebra class, should one of us had turned in an equation with missing stuff and just invented new words to hide our ignorance and represent things we could not figure out?  Well, that would be an "F!"  Big Bang equations do not add up.

 3) Logic is not on the Big Bang side, either.  The Big Bang is a desperate attempt at explaining the creation of the Universe without a Creator.  Occam's Razor be darned!   You see, when Darwinism was proposed by Darwin, the Universe was thought to be very likely eternal and largely unchanging.   A steady state always there Universe gave the statistically impossible concept of evolution endless time to happen.   But the great joy with which Darwinists greeted the apparent deep age of the Universe based on the idea of light years was tempered by the problem of a Universe that had a beginning and was stretched out and possibly still being stretched (as the Bible says, by the way).  How could they explain a created Universe, which would be  actually evidence for a Creator?   Well, they decided to pretend that nothing exploded and became everything.  IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE "SINGULARITY" AND THE POWER BY WHICH THE CONTROLLED EXPLOSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED, PLEASE STEP UP AND EXPLAIN!

 Otherwise I assert that Creationists stand on evidence.  We also say that the entire Big Bang hypothesis is so full of holes and canards and problems that it would be laughed out of existence if it was not the only thing that Darwinism can cling to in order to avoid the Creator God.   I hereby assert that the laws of nature show us that nature does not create itself.   We have changes happening everywhere but creation and destruction?  Nope.   Sorry, naturalist, your insistence on natural solutions leaves you with no Universe at all!!!

 Several major problems with the Big Bang are presented in this article, below, from CreationWiki:

Big bang

NASA cosmic chronology diagram tracing the 13.7 billion year history of the Universe from the Big Bang to the formation of stars,galaxies, and planets.
The Big Bang is the preeminent theory which attempts to explain the origin of the universe through purely natural processes. The theory posits that all of the matter in the universe started as a point of infinite density and temperature known as a singularity. It is believed that approximately 13.7 billion years ago this singularity experienced a rapid inflation of matter, energy, space, and time that eventually evolved and self-organized into stars, galaxies, and planets. The Big Bang was not an explosion in the conventional sense of the term, but an expansion of space and time. However, like an explosion, it was highly energetic and chaotic.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy the big bang theory is the;
“...most widely accepted theory of the origin and evolution of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe originated from an initial state of high temperature and density and has been expanding ever since.[1]”

Contents

 [hide]

Evolutionary Assumptions

Illustration shows the expansion of space and time from an infinitely dense singularity. The diagram is simplified to show abstracted "slices" of space at different points in time in only two of three spatial dimensions. Note that as space is expanding, galaxies (and other structures) are moving apart, but they are not expanding themselves since they are held together locally by gravity.
The big bang theory has two basic assumptions.
  1. The Copernican Principle.
  2. An unbounded universe.

The Copernican Principle

The Copernican Principle is inappropriately named for Nicolas Copernicus as he had no part in propounding this principle. Copernicus put forward the model that the Sun, not the Earth is the center of the Solar System. He first published his heliocentric model in 1512, but his work neither proved nor implied anything about our position on a cosmic scale. The so-called Copernican Principle is the assumption that there is nothing special about the Earth's location in the universe. In other words the overall structure of the universe would look the same from any point in the universe as it does from Earth.
However it may seem there is no scientific evidence for this since we have never seen the universe from any distance from Earth that would allow it to be tested. What is known is that this type of thinking pertains to origins science rather than operational science. Such an assumption is necessary to an evolutionary cosmology since the odds of the universe, let alone any type of life being at a special location by chance would be astronomically small. The Earth being in a special place would suggest special creation and intelligent design to facilitate life.
While there is no scientific evidence for the so called Copernican Principle, there is scientific evidence against it. The direct observation of galactic red shift is so uniform around us that it naturally suggests that we are very near the center of the universe. This is not only a special location but the most special location possible.
To save the so called Copernican Principle it became necessary to postulate an unbounded expanding universe with matter evenly distributed on a large scale so that there is no center. The best illustration of this is with the expansion of a balloon as seen from its surface. Based on this model any place in the universe would seem to be in the center of the expansion. Like the Copernican Principle, there is no scientific evidence for the assumption of an unbounded universe, so it, too, is a purely unseen assumption.

An Unbounded Universe

In the unbounded universe of the big bang there is no edge and as such no center. In a bounded universe there is an edge and there is a definite center. As it turns out, there is evidence for such a center and that the Earth is near it.
There is a quantization of galactic redshift. Based on this phenomenon, galaxies form concentric shells with an average spacing of about 2 million light years. Furthermore, if we were more than 2 million light years from the center we would not see the pattern. In fact observations show us to be within 100,000 light years from the center and when compared to the context of the entire universe that is astronomically precise.

Evidence

Cosmic Background Radiation

High-resolution sky map of cosmic microwave background radiation from NASA's orbiting Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).
Main Article: Cosmic background radiation
Cosmic Background Radiation is a steady microwave radiation from space. It is found in every direction and is roughly equal to 2.73K black body radiation. It is claimed to be residual radiation from the Big Bang. This background radiation was predicted by Big Bang Cosmology and finding it was hailed as proof of the theory.
If the Big Bang happened as described, background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe. Then, following that logic, the X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way should all cast shadows. However recent observations have been done concluding that there is a lack of shadows in places where there should be.[2]

Redshift

Main Article: Redshift
Spectral lines come in two types, emission lines that are light on dark, and absorption lines that are dark on light. When the frequencies do not line up right the spectrum is shifted, with red towards the longer end and blue towards the shorter end. When Edwin Hubble discovered galactic redshift he interpreted it as a Doppler shift. This change in frequency is caused by motion. A redshift indicates that the source is moving away from the observer and a blue shift indicates that the source is moving towards the observer. George Lemaitre's idea, that it is caused by the wavelength of light's being stretched in transit by a continual expansion of space, has become the prominent interpretation of galactic redshift. Galactic red shift does suggest expanding space-time which fits the theory of the Big Bang. It was once thought to fit the white hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys also, but John Hartnett and others have pointed out that the white-hole model would predict a blueshift, because it states that our galaxy is at the bottom of a cosmic gravity well. Hartnett's cosmological relativity predicts redshift as a consequence of the expansion of space itself.

Evidence Against

Age

Proponents of the Big Bang measure an age of 13.7 Gyrs by tracing back the expansion of the universe to an initial point. However, unless the universe has gravitational attraction exactly balanced against this expansion it will either collapse in a Big Crunch or expand too quickly for us to survive in it. The evidence shows that only with a young universe can this problem be resolved which flatly contradicts the Big Bang.

Alternative redshift mechanisms

Dr. Halton Arp and other astronomers have discovered evidence that the universe isn't expanding at all. Instead, their observations indicate that redshifts are likely due to other mechanisms such as atoms having variable mass. If the universe is not expanding then the Big Bang is completely falsified. The variation of mass also disproves radiometric dating since decay rates would change as the mass of protons and electrons changed. These exciting discoveries lead us to conclude that the naturalist assumptions about the age of the universe and its dynamical state are incorrect. In an effort to suppress this inevitability, the astronomical community has denied Dr. Arp telescope time.

Not enough antimatter

According to the Big Bang cosmology most evolutionists assume that there should be an exact counterpart to matter known as antimatter right down to the same mass. Each particle of antimatter is an exact copy of of its identical matter particle except that each antimatter particle has the opposite charge.[3]
These assumed predictions of the Big Bang have lost a lot of credibility because we have not found nearly the amount of antimatter in the universe that could be accepted under such a model.[4]

No magnetic monopoles

Scientists trying to find models that would explain why there is more matter than antimatter have shown that magnetic monopoles should be created in the early universe. Yet, no magnetic monopoles have ever been observed in nature or in particle accelerators.

No plausible inflationary mechanism

Main Article: Cosmic inflation
The Big Bang hinges on a brief period of time called "inflation" during which the universe expanded exponentially. The only way that this can happen is if a hypothetical particle called the "inflaton" by theorists exists. This particle must have the properties of certain particles observed in physics laboratories called "zero spin". However, unlike particles observed with this characteristic, the inflaton must have a property that has never been observed: it must experience a very peculiar potential energy character that slowly decays. Such a feature has never been observed in any laboratory.

No gravitational wave background observed

Scientists supporting the inflationary model of the Big Bang universe predict that a gravitational wave background originating from inflation should exist similar to the cosmic microwave radiation. Currently, several multi-billion dollar projects around the world are attempting to find evidence for the existence of gravitational waves, but no evidence has been forthcoming. Without gravitational waves, it is unclear whether the theory of general relativity can apply to the regimes where inflation is invoked and this casts a pall on the possibility for any sort of Big Bang inflationary model.

Ad hoc reliance on "quantum fluctuations"

In order to account for the differences in the density field of the universe, atheistic cosmologists utilize the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) to provide "variations" in their conception of an inflationary universe. Aside from this assumption relying on theories of quantum gravity which have not been developed, there is no way in which an "uncertainty" which is a statistical measure can account for a real physical over-density or under-density. These over-densities and underdensities are fundamentally required in order to explain the filaments, walls, and voids in the universe we see today, but the best that the Big Bang proponents can do is claim that there were "quantum fluctuations" without explaining the mechanism for their formation beyond a simple hand-waving appeal to "randomness".

Quantum gravity and the paradoxical singularity

For nearly 100 years, scientists and mathematicians have been trying without success to combine the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics together into a coherent theory of quantum gravity. This is a requirement for explaining how a Big Bang could have occurred. They have been unable to do so, despite the supposedly smartest minds in the world working on the problem. Instead, proponents of the Big Bang believe that a physically impossible "singularity" with infinite density, pressure, and temperature was the primal state of the universe: an impossibility that defies modeling. Instead of acknowledging this limitation of their theories, atheistic cosmologists prefer to use the paradox as the fundamental feature of the Big Bang: a universe in a single point that has no size or temporality. Rather than admit their inability to create a model that has any kind of physical meaning whatsoever, the atheistic cosmologists insist that their ideas that are not based on any coherent or consistent theory are correct.

The vacuum is not a vacuum contradiction

Most of the universe is empty space: a vacuum which is defined as a volume containing no particles, force fields, nor waves. By definition a vacuum has no energy. However, the Big Bang theory requires both in its early phases and in its later phases that the vacuum must have some energy (an obvious contradiction). This "vacuum energy density" is an obvious flaw with the theory because it has never been observed in laboratory experiments, and even theorists who believe in its existence cannot decide what its particular characteristics are. When theorists do try to calculate how much of the hypothetical energy should be in the vacuum, they derive a number that is at least one googol (10100) times too large. The other problem is that the two different phases of the Big Bang where energy of the vacuum is not zero have fundamentally completely different sizes of hypothetical energy, so there isn't just one vacuum energy that the naturalists need to account for, there are two. These artificial creations of naturalist astronomers are clung to in spite of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that the energy of the vacuum is zero and that the Big Bang is incorrect.

Electromagnetic forces unaccounted for

Naturalist astronomers assume that gravity is the dominant force in the universe driving the dynamics of the cosmos. However, the universe is mostly plasma which reacts strongly with electromagnetism. The Big Bang does not take this additional force into consideration.

Too complex, too early

The universe has too many large structures such as interspersed walls and voids, to be created in 10-20 billion years. We know the rate of expansion, thus we can get a rough estimate on how long it would take for them to form. Some have proposed that the speeds of galaxies were much faster in the past by means of some sort of viscosity of space, but this is nothing more then wishful thinking. Also, in order for these to form, it would take about 100 billion years.

Not enough helium or lithium

Newer observations have found that there is only 10 per cent of the deuterium present than was previously believed. This would mean that there should be much more helium and lithium around than we actually see. But many Big Bang enthusiasts claim that the amount of helium is a proof.

Too many heavy elements

The Big bang only allows for the production of the lightest elements on the periodic table. However, our very existence is predicated on a concentration of heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. The oldest stars observed in the cosmos contain these heavier elements as well meaning that they had to be around since the very beginning of our universe. The Big Bang provides no explanation for where these elements originate.

The universe isn’t homogeneous enough

In the year 2000, a survey of the red-shift found that it has an inhomogeneous distribution to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. This shows that there are no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. The Big Bang requires large-scale homogeneity.

Galaxy disk formation

Big Bang believers have been trying for decades to simulate the conditions under which galaxies such as our Milky Way form. However, whenever they have tried to do so, they have found that the thin disks seen in many galaxies either do not form at all in a Big Bang universe, or are disrupted as other galaxies collide into the disks. It has become clear that gravitational interactions alone cannot account for galaxy disks, but even when computer simulators add gas dynamics and pressure into their simulations the problem persists. People who study these problems acknowledge the "mystery" but refuse to accept a supernatural creation of galactic disk.

Too much energy

The conservation of energy demands that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In a naturalistic universe there would therefore be no source for the energy seen in our universe. The Big Bang is just a placeholder for an extreme violation of this fundamental physical principle.

Too much angular momentum

Everything in the universe is spinning with angular momentum. However, the conservation of angular momentum demands that angular momentum cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, similar to the energy problem above there must be a source for the angular momentum in our universe that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic theories.

Mathematical discrepancies

DarkMatterNASA1.jpg
In 1933, and again in 1998, the Big Bang model was shown to have serious mathematical discrepancies between observation and expectation. In response, Big Bang cosmologists have invented two concepts that violate Occam's razor and the current understanding of physics, in order to keep their calculations consistent.

Dark matter

Main Article: Dark matter
In 1933, Fritz Zwicky observed that the Coma supercluster was rotating too fast for its own self-gravity to hold it together. A few years later, Jan Oort made a similar deduction about our own galaxy. Astronomers have invented the concept of dark matter to explain this and similar discrepancies in the observations of galaxies and galactic groups, clusters, and superclusters throughout the universe.
However, astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa in a review article to be published in a major astrophysical journal[5] noted that dark matteras a new particle has been falsified by the observation that dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way are aligned in a plane and consistent with having no dark matter at all. The fact that dark matter particles do not exist (in spite of decades of searching, none have been discovered) and the fact that the Big Bang is dependent on the existence of such "dark matter particles" means that Dr. Kroupa has been able to convincingly falsify the Big Bang hypothesis. Kroupa's falsification of the Big Bang has been receiving growing attention from an astronomical community that is beginning to realize that there is no support for the fairy tales of an old, naturalistic universe.[6]

Dark energy

Main Article: Dark energy
In 1998, two separate teams of observers developed incontrovertible evidence that the expansion of the universe, instead of slowing down, is in fact accelerating. Astronomers and cosmologists, lacking any other explanation, have invented the concept of dark energy to explain this acceleration.

Summary

Astronomers and cosmologists now estimate that the total mass-energy content of the universe is about 75% dark energy, 21% dark matter, and only 4% baryonic matter. Attempts to identify the source of either concept have thus far failed.
In 1996, two years before conventional cosmologists observed the apparent acceleration of the universe, Dr. Moshe Carmeli predicted that appearance of acceleration, using a new cosmological model (cosmological relativity) that assumes a space-velocity continuum, not Albert Einstein's space-time continuum. John Hartnett developed the concept further and now claims to have solved the problem of the spin curves of galaxies (and their groups, clusters and superclusters) and of the apparent acceleration of the universe without the need for dark matter or dark energy. This solution also requires discarding the Big Bang model and assuming instead that God created the cosmos exactly as the Bible says He did. Hartnett also claims a bounded universe having our galaxy at its center and a solution to the light-time problem.

Quotes

Paul Davies wrote in The Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p161:
“...represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles.”

Conclusion

The big bang is based on two purely philosophical assumptions, the Copernican Principle and an unbounded universe. If these assumptions are wrong as the evidence indicates, so is every conclusion about the universe based on the big bang.
Furthermore, the Carmeli-Hartnett cosmological relativity solution solves two problems (dark matter and dark energy) that continue to embarrass proponents of the Big Bang model, while also solving a problem that has been one of the greatest challenges to creationists.

News

News.JPG

References

  1. ↑ Edited by Ian Ridpath, Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy (Oxford University Press 1997) pg. 57
  2. ↑ "Big Bang Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test." Moon Daily, September 3, 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
  3. ↑ Oard, Michael. "Missing antimatter challenges the 'big bang' theory." TJ 12(3):256, December 1998. Accessed August 15, 2008.
  4. ↑ Lamicella, Paul W. "Antimatter and the Big Bang." Answers in Genesis, March 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
  5. ↑ http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2546v1
  6. ↑ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21732-nearby-darkmatterfree-zone-poses-cosmic-conundrum.html

External links

Creationist links

Secular links

Email Post