|
|
|
CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION, (CONT.)
IV) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE REFUTES EVOLUTIONARY 'THEORIES'
A) EVOLUTIONARY 'THEORIES' OF THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM REFUTED
CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA:
http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Basic Theory
"Here are 26 reasons why the seven evolutionary solar system theories are worthless...
The Basic Evolutionary 'theory' - Proximate and balanced planets and moons cannot be explained away Disproving the 7 Theories - A close look at each evolutionary theory of how our solar system made itself by accident
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on..., ...only 164 statements are by creationists....
The evolutionists have several theories about how the [solar system] came into existence....
Our solar system contains nine planets and, at last count, sixty moons. It also has many asteroids and several comets. The planets majestically circle the sun, and the moons circle the planets. Moons are in close proximity to the planets they orbit. They all ought to fly apart or fall into one another. Yet everything is maintained in a perfect balance.—p. 9.....
[According to evolutionists] Hydrogen gas exploded out of nothing, then rushed outward, and pushed itself into stars. After this, those stars repeatedly exploded like firecrackers and made themselves into more stars....
Then our solar system is supposed to have formed by accident. But how could our solar system have formed? The evolutionary theories are contradicted by scientific facts. So there is only one alternative: God made our planets and moons, set them in place, and keeps them in balance. The evolutionists' theory about the origin of our solar system. There are seven different theories. We will list each one, and briefly give reasons why it cannot be true. Here are reasons why each of the seven theories are wrong:
Hydrogen and other gases swirled around and condensed into our sun and its planets.—p. 9.
b) WHY THE 'THEORY' IS NOT TRUE:
i) Gas in outer space (as here on earth) expands; it does not contract.—pp. 9-10.
ii) There would be nothing to swirl it around; and, even if it could, there would be nothing to push gas into suns and rock.—p. 10.
iii) If swirling gas formed itself into separate bodies, why did it not keep going and push it all into one giant body?—p. 10.
iv) What would have kept the smaller bodies from falling into the larger one? It is obvious that everything is perfectly balanced.—p. 10.
v) Interstellar gas is not today condensing. It is always expanding.—p. 10.
vi) Our sun is rotating too slowly for the theory to be true.—p. 10.
One day our sun burst open, and planets and moons shot out at high speeds and went to their respective places, then stopped, and started orbiting the sun, as the moons began orbiting the planets. (Charles Darwin's son, *George Darwin, said the moon lifted out of the Pacific Ocean on a high tide and began orbiting the earth.)—p. 10.
b) WHY THE 'THEORY' IS NOT TRUE
The above theory is absurd for obvious reasons. Here is why the moon could not leave the earth:
i) It could not possibly achieve escape velocity, and; if it did, would have pulverize into fragments.—p. 10.
ii) Moon rocks are somewhat different than rocks on earth. (Since the first edition of this book was published, in March 1995, the discovery was announced, on BBC Science News broadcast, that the minerals in moon rocks are remarkably different than those on the earth. This discovery was made by means of the Clementine Research Project, which was able to analyze rocks beneath the moon's surface.)—p. 10.
iii) If an explosion on earth was powerful enough to hurl material into outer space, that material would continue moving outward. It would not stop and then circle the earth.—p. 10.
iv) If thrown off by the earth, the moon would encircle the earth at the equator, not at a tilt of 18-28o.—p. 11.
Planets and moons were flying around, and some were captured by our sun and began circling.—p. 11.
b) WHY THE 'THEORY' IS NOT TRUE
i) Outer space is too large for nine planets and sixty moons to be caught by our sun. Millions would have to pass, in order for one to be caught.—p. 11.
ii) No planets or moons are flying by us today.—p. 11.
iii) They would tend to crash into the sun, not fly by it or begin encircling it.—p. 11.
iv) Moons would not begin orbiting around planets; they would crash into the sun or into the planets.—p. 11.
A pile of space dust and rock chunks pushed together into our planet, and another pile pushed itself into our moon. Then the moon got close enough and began encircling the earth.—p. 11.
b) WHY THE 'THEORY' IS NOT TRUE
i) Where did the space dust and rock come from?—p. 11.
ii) Loose gravel, etc., in outer space would not push itself together; it would push apart.—p. 11.
iii) The moons and planets would crash together.—p. 11.
6) PLANETARY COLLISION 'THEORY'
Our world collided with a small planet, and the explosion threw off rocks which became the moon, and then it began orbiting us.
b) WHY THE 'THEORY' IS NOT TRUE
i) Such an impact would destroy the earth.—p. 11.
ii) Material from the explosion would keep moving outward forever.—p. 11.
iii) Outward moving material would not stop and begin circling.—p. 11.
iv) Such an event would have to happen to all the other planets.—p. 11.
v) Thousands of near misses would have to occur, for one to crash together; yet no moons are passing us today.—pp. 11, 13.
Our planets, moons, and suns spun off from the collision between stars.—p. 13.
b) WHY THE 'THEORY' IS NOT TRUE
i) The collision would hurl material outward, and never veer from that outward course.—p. 13.
ii) Any pieces drawn together would smash, not orbit one another.—p. 13.
Gas clouds were captured by our sun. But instead of being drawn into it, they began whirling and pushing themselves into planets and moons.—p. 13.
b) WHY THE 'THEORY' IS NOT TRUE
i) Gas does not lump together; it only spreads outward.—p. 13.
ii) If gas could stick together, it would not produce objects which would encircle the sun nor would smaller bodies encircle them.—p. 13.
9) CHEMICAL EVOLUTION 'THEORY'
[David Rosevear, (Dir. Creation Science Movement in England) states in IMPACT brochure #313, Published by the Institute for Creation Research; El Cajon, Ca; 1999]:
"The Myth of Chemical Evolution
The ancient Greeks believed in the spontaneous generation of life. More recently, Louis Pasteur showed that life did not arise from non-living material. Yet those who deny the Creator's existence must believe it happened once upon a time. Evolutionists estimate the earth to be 4.6 billion years old and the earliest fossils about 3.8 billion years old. An initially hot Earth might take, say, 0.3 billion years to become 'user friendly,' so the first life took only about half a billion years to arrive from abiotic non-living) starting materials. If it is as easy as just having the right conditions, one might think that life should have evolved many times before the advent of photosynthesis produced an oxygen concentration which made conditions unfavorable. Yet all life rides upon the same biomolecules, metabolic pathways, and genetic information, so life had but one origin, either created or evolved.
Modern theories of the origin of life date back to the Soviet scientist Oparin in 1924. His ideas of a Primeval Soup were promoted in the West by fellow communist J.D.S. Haldane of Cambridge. In 1953 Urey & Miller published results of some simple experiments in organic chemistry which seemed to lend credence to the soup theory. Interestingly, forty years later, Miller admitted that the question of the origin of life is much more difficult than he, or anyone else, had thought. Clutching at straws, others have suggested mid-ocean ridges (with their cocktail of hot chemicals) as the cradle of life, while others have postulated an extraterrestrial seeding of the Earth. This latter suggestion still does not offer a mechanism for abiogenesis.
With the development of molecular biology since the time of Oparin and Haldane, the cell is no longer regarded as simple. The living plasma membrane allows in or out only specific compounds. It is not simply a semi-permeable membrane. Cells contain nucleic acids that carry information about the structure and functions of the organism. They also contain ribosomes where proteins are made using a complex mechanism of nucleic acids and more than a hundred different proteins, each with a specific task. The cell also contains mitochondria where energy (ATP) is produced. The complexity of all these parts of the cell is enormous. Lynn Margulis has suggested that the first proto-cell assimilated these organelles by a process of symbiosis. However these components cannot now exist independently, nor could the cell exist without their contributions. Moreover, one such type of organelle, known as a lysosome, contains enzymes whose function is to digest foreign bodies. With all the amazingly complex, mutually -dependent components, it seems that the cell had to be complete from the beginning, rather than being assembled piecemeal over years of evolution.
The major biochemicals in living cells are proteins and nucleic acids. No biologically significant proteins or nucleic acids have been made by any experiments such as those of Miller or those who have followed him.
Proteins are strings of amino acids whose enzymatic activities arise from active groups within a specific three-dimensional shape. These are due to a precise sequence of the amino acids. There are twenty amino acids found in proteins, although many others exist that are not used in metabolic pathways. Chemically they are NH2CH(R)COOH, where R is H in the simplest case, glycine, but can also be a variety of organic groups such as CH3 in alanine. In all amino acids except glycine, the central carbon is surrounded by a tetrahedron of four different groups, H, R, amine and carboxylic acid. Because of this asymmetry, amino acids exist in two forms, designated right- and left-handed (or d and l, or R and S). In proteins (a string of amino acids - NHCH(R)CONHCH(R')CO - etc. formed by condensing out of a molecule of water, HOH, between each pair), all amino acids are left-handed. This left-handedness gives that chain a spiral twist, leading to a specific 3D shape that is essential to its function. In the living cell, proteins are made by means of RNA and many specialized proteins (enzymes). Since proteins are needed to make proteins, it is not easy to speculate how a first protein could occur by chance processes.
In laboratory experiments aimed at simulating conditions on a lifeless Earth, a messy mixture of amino acids can be formed, consisting of mostly glycine and d/lalanine. Not all amino acids found in proteins can be synthesized in this manner, while many not used by living systems do result from these experiments. A product consisting of exclusively left-handed amino acids never results, and from theoretical considerations cannot result. Only d/l racemic mixtures are formed. Peptization, the joining of the amino acids to form a protein by the elimination of water, is difficult to accomplish by non-biological means. Proteinoids are unstable in the presence of water. Since they cannot replicate themselves, natural selection cannot be a driving force in their improvement. The precise order of amino acids in proteins in cells is governed by information on the nucleic acids that code for them, so this could not be achieved by chance. Moreover, the tar-like by-products would tend to poison any enzymatic activity in proteins.
Nucleic acids are found in living cells as DNA, ribosomal-RNA, messenger-RNA and transfer-RNA, each with specific properties. They consist of strings of nucleotides, which are composed of a nitrogenous base, a sugar and a phosphate linkage. DNA carries the genetic information for the organism while RNA is used in protein synthesis. There are four different bases on the double-stranded DNA. The strands are linked by weak hydrogen bonds between bases on each strand. The structure of the bases is such that each in one strand only links with one other type of base in the other strand. One single strand of DNA therefore acts as a template for the other strand during cell replication. Three consecutive bases act as a codon to transfer information to specify a particular amino acid, or to start or stop a sequence. This information of a string of DNA (gene) is responsible of the formation of a particular protein. Since there are four bases, there are sixty-four codons (4 to the third power), which pass information rather like the letters and punctuation of a written message. This is a precise mechanism. Information transfer is checked at a rapid rate by proteins for random changes, known as mutations, which lose information. No mutation could lead to an increase of information, so neo-Darwinism cannot be a mechanism for macroevolution. It is a tenet of Information Theory that information only comes from an intelligent source, so genetic information must have been created. Information not only implies meaning, but purpose. This is the opposite of chance. As a carrier of information the DNA molecule is 4.5 x 10 to the 13th power (45 trillion) times more efficient than the silicon megachip, which was made by teams of designers. Incidentally, a stereo-chemical basis for the relationship between any particular three nucleotides and the amino acid for which they code has not yet been elucidated.
When nucleotides are joined in the laboratory, thermodynamic considerations allow one particular site for bonding phosphate to sugar to the next phosphate. However, such a pseudo-DNA strand is not biologically useful. The bonding site found in DNA, the 3' and 5' carbons of ribose, is in the best position because the proteins used to join it together acts as templates to get the junction across the sugar right. The sugars, deoxyribose in DNA, and ribose in RNA, are also chiral like the amino acids, but in this case the sugars are all right-handed. Again, there is no conceivable mechanism for arranging this by chance.
Urey and Miller had to assume, contrary to the opinions of geologists, that the early Earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere. This is because amino acids are destroyed by oxygen. But absence of oxygen implies absence of ozone, another form of oxygen. Ozone in our atmosphere protects us from high energy ultra-violet rays from the Sun. Nucleic acids are rapidly decomposed by UV light. A further difficulty for those who postulate abiogenic synthesis is that the molecules formed are destroyed by the very conditions (such as heat, UV light and electricity) that make them. Proteins and polynucleotides are thermodynamically unstable. They are also unstable with regard to hydrolysis and reactions with other simple reagents. Moreover, the longer the experiment is allowed to continue, the more decomposition products are made. Many processes are reversible, and in the equilibrium state simpler starting materials predominate over more complex products. Time does not help the forward reaction. The tarry messes from these experiments are in stark contrast to the neat metabolic pathways of living cells with their clean, high yields of precisely fashioned products. In their experiments to simulate abiogenic development, investigators begin each stage with pure compounds in high concentrations. This can hardly reflect natural conditions on a prebiotic Earth.
In the living cell, the DNA codes for proteins and the DNA is itself constructed using proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation. It has been suggested that RNA possesses some of the enzymatic properties of proteins while having the information carrying ability of DNA. Could positing a first proto-cell that relied on RNA for both functions, solve the problem? No primeval soup experiment has ever produced anything resembling RNA. RNA does not replicate itself, a prime necessity for a living cell. RNA's enzymatic properties are not sufficiently versatile for even the simplest imaginable proto-cell. The problem of the origin of information on the information carrying RNA remains unsolved. A proto-cell based solely on proteins is equally impossible, since proteins lack the ability to reproduce themselves.
Each component of a living cell is breathtakingly complex, yet in isolation it cannot survive nor replicate itself. All the parts of the cell are necessary to its functioning and replication. Nothing works until everything works. This has been called irreducible complexity. Even small parts of the components of cells can be unimaginably complex. An example of this is the enzyme adenosine triphosphate synthase, found in all living cells including animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. The elucidation of the structure of ATP synthase won a 1997 Nobel Prize. Every cell contains hundreds of these miniature motors embedded in the surfaces of the mitochondria. Each is 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead. The motor forges a bond between ADP and phosphate to form ATP. The ATP couples with other processes in the cell requiring energy to reform ADP and phosphate. So energy is directed to contract muscles, beat the heart and drive thought processes in the brain, while the products are recycled. At the center of ATP synthase is a tiny wheel that turns at about 100 revolutions per second and turns out three ATP molecules per rotation. Just to keep us thinking and walking, humans must recyle their own body weight of ATP each day. Each enzyme is composed of thirty-one separate proteins that in turn are made of thousands of precisely arranged amino acids. Take away any one of the 31 proteins and the motor is useless. It could not have evolved. And consider this: the genetic information and RNA plus proteins needed to construct the ATP synthase are in total even more irreducibly complex than the ATP synthase itself. (A car-making factory is more complex than a car.)
The concept of abiogenesis is vital to the atheistic evolutionist. It follows in their thinking that if life can arise spontaneously under the right conditions, then there will be perhaps millions of planets in the Universe where life already exists. In some of these places intelligent life may have evolved. These ideas have spawned a large body of literature, films and video games involving imaginary extraterrestrial life. Billions of dollars have been spent by government sponsored searches for messages from out there (e.g., project SETI). The irony is that evolutionists would recognize that a nonrandom signal from space that carried information with meaning and purpose must have come from an intelligent extraterrestrial. Yet they consider nucleic acids in the living cell, a nonrandom sequence of nucleotides carrying far more information with precise meaning and exquisite purpose, and say it must have arrived by chance!"
10) EXPANDING UNIVERSE: BIG BANG THEORY
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/bigbang.asp
'''Many of the most favored big bang versions are already having severe problems thanks to the findings of new instruments, such as the Hubble space telescope. For example, some measurements which were used to calculate the rate of the universe's expansion (if indeed the "red shift" of light means expansion at all) would have meant (if such cosmic evolutionary speculations were factual) that the universe was younger than the alleged ages of some of its stars!
As optical telescopes are improved, enabling astronomers to look ever further out into space, "big bangers" have eagerly expected that there would be a consistent pattern found, such that at greater red shifts (assumed to be bigger distances) there would be ever "younger" (in cosmic evolutionary terms) galaxies. It turns out that most of the galaxies at high red shifts are indeed dominated by blue stars (this is the colour which present theory expects from stars which have not been burning as long as red ones), and there is a "striking variety of shapes". While this is not very specific, it does match the big bangs' expectations in a general sense. It could also match a number of creationist cosmological scenarios.
However, it only takes one black swan to disprove the notion that all swans are white, and there are in fact several galaxies in the same red-shift zone which are not blue, but red. The "most perplexing" such galaxy to date has an apparent age (again according to evolutionary theories) of 3.5 billion years, which is far too "old" for a galaxy at such an allegedly early stage (red shift 1.5) of the universe's history.
The end of the big bang?
In addition, the distant universe is causing a headache by being far too "clumpy" for the popular big bang scenario. About a decade ago, astronomers doing large-scale 3-D "mapping" of positions of galaxies were surprised to find that the universe was incredibly "clumpy", with huge sheets of galaxies, one dubbed the "Great Wall", alternating with massive "voids". Even back then, it was stated that there should not have been enough time for an exploding mass to form such large-scale structures. Although cosmologists had a hard time learning to live with this reality, they could at least comfort themselves with the knowledge that the "early universe" would turn out to better match their predictions by looking back (i.e. out) far enough, the universe would get progressively "smoother". Unfortunately for the theory, it is beginning to look as if it is just as lumpy a long way out. Preliminary observations strongly suggest that there are many "structures the size and shape of the Great Wall, but dozens of times farther away". In fact, such clustering is turning up in one part of the sky that "includes the faintest and most distant galaxies observed".
Will this mean the end of the big bang? We suspect not, because this model has long been noted by some to be sufficiently vague to be remarkably flexible. Presumably, if the past is any guide, "twiddling a few more knobs" on the model will probably be able to "salvage" it once more. There are all manner of variables which can be shuffled at will in computer models' changes in the expansion rate, the density of mass in the universe (one can assume almost any amount of invisible "dark matter"), the existence of a hypothetical "cosmological constant" there have even been suggestions that the law of gravity may not have been the same in the "early universe". Therefore it is no surprise that the seeming conflict between the age of the universe and the age of some if its stars has "almost" been solved by some frantic adjustments. The calculations giving "ages" of the oldest stars range from 12 to 15 billion years; astronomers now are coming to agreement on an "age" range of the universe of 8 to 12 billion years. As close as the overlap is, it is enough to save the day for the moment.
However, there is another set of awkward, uncomfortable observations which have loomed in the background for around 20 years now, which, if correct, have been said to have awesome implications, even to the extent of being the deathknell for any big bang concept. The observation is the "quantization of red shifts," and has even been said to undermine the very idea that the universe is expanding.
What is it about? Astronomer William Tifft of the University of Arizona was the first to claim that the red shifts (the degree to which the light from stars is shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which is supposed to measure the speed at which the star is moving away, and hence how far away it is) of galaxies fall into distinct packets or quanta, like the rungs of a ladder. This would be like saying that if you measured the speed of particles coming out of an explosion, instead of being evenly distributed across a range of velocities, they fell into groups, for example, 100 kilometers an hour, 200 km/in, 300 km/in and so on.
Tifft was ignored at first, but continued to amass data for many years, most showing the same effect. Now, in a major study of more than 200 galaxies, using very sensitive equipment, two UK astronomers, Oxford's Bill Napier and Bruce Guthrie from Edinburgh, claim to have "the best evidence yet" that the phenomenon is real.
This time, even some former skeptics of the claim are taking it seriously enough to warrant getting involved in the debate, suggesting proposals to test it further, and so on.
Mike Disney of Cardiff's University of Wales says that if it keeps on holding up, it might turn standard cosmology "on its ear". He says, "it would mean abandoning a great deal of present research". All attempts to try to explain it within conventional models are, to put it mildly, "highly unorthodox", and it is stated that if it does survive the next round of tests, "theorists will have a sticky problem trying to explain it".
James Peebles of Princeton, whose pet big bang cosmology is the big loser if this is right, says he treats the claims with "extreme caution" for this very reason, saying that he is "not being dogmatic and saying it can't happen, but if it does, it's a real shocker".
However, the data are already very impressive. According to Bill Napier they tried hard to avoid concluding that the red shifts were quantized, but failed.
There seems little doubt that if these observations did not conflict with the big bang, they would have been taken much more seriously a long time ago. The problem seems to be, as prominent astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge put it (Burbidge is Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego):
"Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and [in] many cases, untestable assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth."
Unfortunately, some of those who promote the alleged big bang as an article of faith are Christians. They claim it is a fact of nature, which must therefore be accepted, and Genesis must be reinterpreted to suit this and other concepts held by evolutionists.
Such "facts of nature", in their view, are a source of revelation on a par with the Bible. For example, Dr Hugh Ross writes, "The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible"
The problem with this idea, now being enthusiastically embraced by many leading evangelicals, comes when one has to face up to the reality that all such "facts" can only ever be the interpretations and conclusions of fallible, finite people, biased by nature against their Maker.
Many who have been swayed by such attempts to harmonize the Bible with evolutionism will have to hunt around for a new "interpretation" of Genesis if (or perhaps one should say when) the big bang is discarded by the secular world in their lifetime. Of course, such abandonment would only be undertaken once an alternative concept had been thought up, one which fitted the data at least well enough to continue to assist an unbelieving world in its vain attempt to try to explain the origin of the world without God.'''
Newton's first two laws of thermodynamics confound the Big Bang Theory 
Galaxy-quasar ‘connection’
defies explanation and contradicts the red shift/expanding universe
theory: