Evolution Fallacies

[Rex]

Fallicies of Evolution

<LI>Reason #1:

The Big Bang as taught by evolutionists was supposed to happen in the neighborhood of sixteen to twenty billion years ago. All the matter and energy in the universe was drawn into a ball (the size of a proton, called a "cosmic egg." Violation of conservation of mass and energy by the way.) of energy spinning rapidly. Eventually this ball of matter and energy exploded and hurled out particles the size of our Milky Way galaxy and all of the planets, etc. This is supposedly the origin of the universe. However, you should ask, where did all this energy for this Big Bang come from, where did the laws of nature come from such as the laws of gravity, centrifugal force, inertia, etc. Energy just doesn't "happen," it has to have a source. I always hear "the universe breaks down at a singularity." If you back the universe up 16 billion years it would collapse into a "cosmic egg." What they don't like to discuss is what happened prior to this "singularity" and where the matter and energy came from. The fact is, they don't know and it plain and simply doesn't happen. Of course, they don't know where these laws came from either or how they came into effect, but they believe it happened. That is why Evolution is a religion; I think it is a dumb religion. Nobody was there for this "Big Bang" but somehow it happened.

Here is my point. According to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum when a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (such as the Big Bang) ALL the fragments will spin in the same direction. However, Venus and Uranus spin BACKWARDS from all the other planets. Uranus actually spins on its side like a wheel. Six of the sixty-three moons in our solar system rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune all have moons orbiting in BOTH DIRECTIONS. If this problem is solved by saying for example, Uranus getting a "thwack" from an object as I was told by Talk Origins, that creates another problem. Growing a planet by numerous collisions would be largely self-canceling and would produce a planet with no spin at all. This cannot explain why all planets spin. This is yet another problem for those who want to believe that this universe is a big accident.

Another problem is when the gases contracted after the Big Bang to form the sun. This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. Actually the sun spins very slowly while the planets move very rapidly around it. The sun has over ninety-nine percent of the mass of our solar system while it has only two percent of the angular momentum. (Taylor, S.R., Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective, p. 53, 1992) This is exactly the opposite of what should have happened after the Big Bang. Some people will attempt to get around this problem by stating that; "The sun transferred most of its momentum to the planets via a process known as "magnetic braking." In the early stages of the solar system, the magnetic field of the sun dragged ionized atoms in the solar nebula with it, thereby transferring energy that accelerated the atoms but slowed the sun's rotation. (Wagner, 1991, 436) However, there is no evidence of this phenomenon occurring today. Just another evolutionary "just-so" story we are supposed to swallow. Why does Saturn have rings? Why is the earth unlike any other planet in the solar system? Most likely if the Big Bang did happen the planets wouldn't spin but yet they all do and at different speeds. Could such an explosion be the source for all these planets, stars, and spiral galaxies spinning in such intricate precision, not very likely at all? The truth is, the Big Bang is a big dud, it didn't happen.

2-40 Reasons click here

 

[YawgmothsAvatar]

According to Big Bang theory, the universe came from nothing. But something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, there must be a creator. REPLY: (i) First, of all, the idea of the universe "coming from" nothing, far from being a stipulation of standard Big Bang theory, is inconsistent with it. The theoretical foundation of standard Big Bang theory is Einstein's general theory of relativity, and according to the general theory of relativity, space and time are themselves an inseparable part of the universe. Hence, on standard Big Bang theory, there can have been no time prior to the initial singularity, which in turns means that the vision of a primordial nothingness from which the universe suddenly emerged is inconsistent with standard Big Bang theory. As Stephen Hawking writes,

[T]o talk about causation or creation implicitly assumes there was a time before the big bang singularity. We have known for twenty-five years that Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that time must have had a beginning in a singularity fifteen billion years ago. (Hawking 1993:46)

(ii) Standard Big Bang theory, however, does not provide a complete account of the origin of the universe, so one should not draw any metaphysical conclusions from it. Because the early universe combined small size with high energy, one cannot give an accurate account of the early history of the universe without a theory of quantum gravity (a theory that synthesizes quantum mechanics and general relativity). No theory of quantum gravity has yet been fully developed, but according to physicist Lee Smolin, any theory of quantum gravity must have only one of three consequences:

[A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
[C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case, there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense. (Smolin 1997:82)

If consequence A turns out to be the case, then we have the same situation as that described by standard Big Bang theory: a universe which exists at every instant of time, and hence cannot "come from" anything at all.

If consequence B turns out to be the case, then the universe extends back infinitely in time, likewise eliminating the supposed problems raised by the universe "coming from" nothing.

If consequence C turns out to be the case (this is the kind of scenario proposed in the quantum cosmological speculations of Hawking 1988), then, again the universe cannot have "come from" anything, as the very notion of time-ordering ceases to have meaning in the early universe.

Creationism, then, finds no help from standard or quantum cosmology.

(iii) If we assume that there in fact was some time prior to the origin of the universe, at which there was nothing but time, then it is still unclear that there is a problem. If there is nothing it all, how can there be a restriction on something coming into being? There is certainly no logical contradiction in imagining there being nothing at one point of time and then something at a later point in time. It is not as though we are talking about "nothing" itself somehow changing into an existent something, or about the universe causing itself.

Furthermore, since general relativity does not allow for time without space, the view that there was a time prior to the origin of the universe would amount to the suggestion that there was a preexisting spacetime, and there have been a number of mechanisms proposed for how a universe could come into existence spontaneously from a preexisting spacetime (Smolin 1997, Gribbin 1993:243-254).

(iv) Vilenkin (1982, see also Guth 1997:271-276) has proposed that quantum mechanics alone could allow for the transition of a universe with no geometry (no points) to a universe with a geometry, in effect generating the universe out of nothing. However, since quantum mechanics requires time to function, it is unclear to me whether this proposal is coherent. I mention it as another item on the table that must be considered.

Collisions and tidal interactions are both excellent mechanisms to introduce retrograde spins and orbital motion, and if an object independently orbiting the sun is captured into orbit around a planet, it could easily orbit either way depending on its final approach. It's worth noting that every single object in the solar system, hundreds of them, with diameters larger than a few hundred km, all except one (Neptune's moon Triton, which is almost universally believed to be a captured KBO) orbit their parent body in more or less the same direction; most have rotation axes within about 30 degrees of the ecliptic pole. Most of the exceptions are the outermost moons of the outer planets, which are almost certainly captured asteroids/KBOs and subject to the above proviso.

The sun transferred most of its momentum to the planets via a process known as "magnetic braking." In the early stages of the solar system, the magnetic field of the sun dragged ionized atoms in the solar nebula with it, thereby transferring energy that accelerated the atoms but slowed the sun's rotation. (Wagner 1991:436)

There is nothing mysterious about this process: it can be likened to a spinning ice skater who suddenly grabs onto inert weights with her outstretched arms; her own angular momentum will decrease, while the angular momentum of the weights will increase. With enough mass at enough distance, the skater's angular momentum can be reduced to only 2% of the angular momentum of the entire spinning system.

From http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1.html#1.1 and http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=230899&highlight=

 

[painted wolf]

this should be listed as falacies of Big Bang Theory not Evolution.
They are two different and indipendant theories....

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

ok, I couldn't help this one but....

"Just recently (1997) over two hundred pounds of frozen, UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones were found in Alaska and in some of these bones red blood cells, hemoglobin, and DNA were found"

This is absolute Bull *$@#!!!! No dinosaur DNA has been found... the one proposed DNA sample (supposedly from a Triceritops) was most likely the result of contamination... (turkey DNA)...

certenly no Unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found.

wa:do

 

[LittleNipper]

ok, I couldn't help this one but....

"Just recently (1997) over two hundred pounds of frozen, UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones were found in Alaska and in some of these bones red blood cells, hemoglobin, and DNA were found"

This is absolute Bull *$@#!!!! No dinosaur DNA has been found... the one proposed DNA sample (supposedly from a Triceritops) was most likely the result of contamination... (turkey DNA)...

certenly no Unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found.

wa:do

Painted Wolf, this really shakes your whole view of evolution up doesn't it. You cannot accept this. It totally underminds everything evolutionists have been teaching. see

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v14n3_dino.asp

 

[Druidus]

I don't understand why we can't have both. Why not say that "God" started the Big Bang (which was actually more of a "whoosh") and set everything up so that we would eventually evolve. Maybe she liked watching us progress. What difference does that make?

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't understand why we can't have both. Why not say that "God" started the Big Bang (which was actually more of a "whoosh") and set everything up so that we would eventually evolve. Maybe she liked watching us progress. What difference does that make?

GOD isn't a female. GOD created from nothing. There is no issue of fertility necessary. The original Druids died out with the coming of light. It would seem that they have returned with the approach of darkness...

 

[Druidus]

GOD isn't a female.

Assuming, of course, that your God exists, how would you know? Perhaps "God" is a male, female, both, or something completely different.

GOD created from nothing.

I never said she didn't (Not that I believe in that one anyway).

There is no issue of fertility necessary.

Who said anything about fertility? Certainly not me. I never argued over whether or not your God could have a child.

The original Druids died out with the coming of light.

The "light" was carried by cruel missionaries and soldiers who persecuted the Druids until they were forced to give in. They were tortured and starved, beaten and whipped. Christianity did that a lot with people of other religions and cultures. Some "light".

It would seem that they have returned with the approach of darkness...

Is that supposed to imply something?

 

[LittleNipper]

I suppose that the human sacrifices Druids performed count as nothing. Murder is murder no matter who commits it. I would not refer to GOD as a female because GOD doesn't procreate. The female is a created gender for the purpose of copulation and procreation.
GOD is without gender and as such grammatically speaking should be refered to as him.
I find that feminists generally call GOD a she because they feel cheated somehow... The
Hebrews always used the masculine. I see no reason to fix what isn't broken.

 

[Druidus]

I suppose that the human sacrifices Druids performed count as nothing.

The only account of human sacrifice by the Druids is from Julius Caesar, who at the time was waging a war against them. it was merely propaghanda. None of the other scholars who lived with the Druids mentioned anything like it. We value all life to be sacred, and would not kill without a true purpose.

 

[Druidus]

I suppose that the human sacrifices Druids performed count as nothing.

The only account of human sacrifice by the Druids is from Julius Caesar, who at the time was waging a war against them. it was merely propaghanda. None of the other scholars who lived with the Druids mentioned anything like it. We value all life to be sacred, and would not kill without a true purpose.

I would not refer to GOD as a female because GOD doesn't procreate.

So women who remain abstinant their entire lives are not female? What about if they cannot concieve due to disease? Are they no longer female?

GOD is without gender and as such grammatically speaking should be refered to as him.

Without gender, grammatically, is "it".

 

[YawgmothsAvatar]

Painted Wolf, this really shakes your whole view of evolution up doesn't it. You cannot accept this. It totally underminds everything evolutionists have been teaching. see

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v14n3_dino.asp

LittleNipper, I tried to research to find a peer reviewed article on that discovery, but I couldn't do it sucessfully. Mind citing it?

It also appears that no expedition has been sent out after the first one. I am also curious as to what became of this rather large amount of bones.

The female is a created gender for the purpose of copulation and procreation.

Um... wow. That is just... wow. Amoung a myriad of other things, that begs the question: what is the male gender creater for?

 

[Scott1]

Amoung a myriad of other things, that begs the question: what is the male gender creater for?

My wife told me it is to open jars and kill spiders......... not sure if she used a scientific study....

 

[Ceridwen018]

I would not refer to GOD as a female because GOD doesn't procreate. The female is a created gender for the purpose of copulation and procreation.

I could say the same thing about men. Use your head here, LittleNipper. Men are just as necessary for procreation and copulation as women are. Your posts seem extremely sexist to me, or at least unsensitive. I'd suggest that you watch out for that in the future, lest you desire a smackdown from me and the girls here.

GOD is without gender and as such grammatically speaking should be refered to as him.

Welcome to the 21st century, LittleNipper. The masculine tense of words is no longer politically correct when referring to a group of mixed gender, or something without gender.

I find that feminists generally call GOD a she because they feel cheated somehow... The
Hebrews always used the masculine. I see no reason to fix what isn't broken.

The Hebrews lived in a male dominated society--you do not. I don't personally take offense to people calling god a 'him', except of course when you talk so nonchalantly about it and expect women to just roll over and accept it. Perhaps the problem lies with men--is your ego too big to admit you worship something female, LittleNipper?

 

[painted wolf]

ok... the gender of god isn't really the point of this post... not that it isn't a fun debate but it is way off...

Perhaps if they had the referance to the unfossilized dinosaur bones it would have seememd more plausible...

I'm not threatened by the idea in fact, I'm shure paleontologists would LOVE to get thier hands on 'fresh' dinosaur remains as it would help to answer numerous questions. Such a discovery would certenly have made all the scientific journals and possibly front page of some newspapers... the public loves dinosaurs

since neither of these things have happined then I have no choice than to conclude that this is a falce story. No evidence and no proof means frankly not true or grossly distorted at best.

Anyway, I agree with Mr.Spinkles that evolution doesn't rule out god, I believe in creator and I believe in evolution.... of cource my faith doesn't rest on Genisis.

wa:do

 

[Druidus]

Anyway, I agree with Mr.Spinkles that evolution doesn't rule out god, I believe in creator and I believe in evolution.... of cource my faith doesn't rest on Genisis.

Exactly! I believe in a myriad of different "Gods", and one true Source, and yet, I also believe in the Big Bang, as well as evolutionary theory. There isn't anything truly conflicting here.

 

[patronkerr]

No need to think! No need to understand! Just believe! Just believe in the Bible. The Bible has ben translated, re-translated and re-translated again and again, heavens (if you'll excuse the pun) knows how many times.
Man has been given an enquiring mind and it's obvious that the things we take for granted in the 21st centuary are as a result of this enquiring mind and the ability to invent and adapt. Things like electricity, motor vehicles, etc, etc, are as a result of the evolution of the human brain.
In Jesus's day, there were no such things. Travel was by donkey or horse or by chariot if you were a Roman. Aircraft, to give one tiny example, were not conceived of. Surely this is an example of evolution, remembering that Jesus was on earth only 2004 years ago, a wink of an eye in the age of the earth.
I could go on and on but I know that those who place all their belief in the Bible can never be convinced by logic because belief overcomes logic.
So I think the whole discussion is a waste of time! So much easier not to think, not to try to understand - just believe.

 

[Druidus]

Aircraft, to give one tiny example, were not conceived of.

Just have to tell you that back in B.C. a certain Chinese emperor had a "flying ship" made but then he had it burned as an abomination. Also, the Egyptians may have had aircraft as well, as shown in several hieroglyphics, and pictures.

 

[YawgmothsAvatar]

No need to think! No need to understand! Just believe! Just believe in the Bible. The Bible has ben translated, re-translated and re-translated again and again, heavens (if you'll excuse the pun) knows how many times.
Man has been given an enquiring mind and it's obvious that the things we take for granted in the 21st centuary are as a result of this enquiring mind and the ability to invent and adapt. Things like electricity, motor vehicles, etc, etc, are as a result of the evolution of the human brain.
In Jesus's day, there were no such things. Travel was by donkey or horse or by chariot if you were a Roman. Aircraft, to give one tiny example, were not conceived of. Surely this is an example of evolution, remembering that Jesus was on earth only 2004 years ago, a wink of an eye in the age of the earth.
I could go on and on but I know that those who place all their belief in the Bible can never be convinced by logic because belief overcomes logic.
So I think the whole discussion is a waste of time! So much easier not to think, not to try to understand - just believe.

I think you are referring to a different kind of evolution. An evolution of culture or ideas, perhaps.

The human brain has had no major changes to it in the recent past. The reason why people conceived of ideas such as airplanes and electricity is because they had the ideas of those before them to refer to. If you locked a modern day human at birth in a sealed environment simulating cave man times, then he wouldn't magically think up of electricity. Maybe he might figure out fire.

 

[Druidus]

The human brain has had no major changes to it in the recent past. The reason why people conceived of ideas such as airplanes and electricity is because they had the ideas of those before them to refer to. If you locked a modern day human at birth in a sealed environment simulating cave man times, then he wouldn't magically think up of electricity. Maybe he might figure out fire.

Humans have actually been growing taller for a long time, as well as shrinking in brain size (For quite a while).