Big Bang Debunked

[KiwiChristian]

Sorry, this is long. But this is an important topic.

Either God created everything, or NOTHING exploded and became SOMETHING.

 

For me, one of the main reasons i believe in God is the sheer impossibility of the alternative.

We are living on a 6,371 km diameter rock, hurtling through space at a speed of 30 km/sec 93 million miles away from a 27 million degrees Fahrenheit inferno and no-one in charge.

The Bible is not a book. It is a COLLECTION of 66 books, written over a span of 1600 years, across three continents by over 40 writers inspired by God in three languages.

 

 

Big Bang Baloney- EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE BIG BANG THEORY

Did the Universe begin with a super explosion of a small mass 10 billion years ago?

Briefly, the following problems are observed in our solar system that defy the Big Bang
explanation:

1. Uranus and Venus rotate in the opposite direction to the other planets.
2. Some planets have eccentric or tilted orbits.
3. Some planet’s satellite moons move in retrograde (backwards) motion.
4. Our moon has a lower density than earth. If it was thrown out from earth, it’s density would be more.
5. The sun’s angular momentum is 1/200th of the planets.

This small angular momentum makes it unlikely that the planets could be thrown out of the sun.

Source: “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation”. D.R. Peterson, p.45.

Big Bang theory says that a large quantity of nothing condensed by gravity into a single tiny spot and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets and moons.

Question: What is wrong with this theory? A lot!

1. Nothingness cannot pack together.
2. There would be no ignition to explode a speck of nothingness.
3. The theoretical explosion would fall back on itself giving a theoretical black
hole. R L St. Peter, 1974.

4. There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter exists. (Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p.343).
5. The anti-matter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter.
6. There is no way to unite all the outward rushing particles from the central
explosion, because they would keep getting farther apart over time travelled. (See Novotny’s research).
7. The particles would maintain the same speed and direction forever, with no way for them to begin circling each other as gas clouds. Linear motion would not change to angular momentum.
8. Neither hydrogen or helium in outer space would clump together, because gases on earth push apart, but never clump together. Gas clouds in space expand, and don’t contract to form anything.
9. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.
10. If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of evenly mixed stars and galaxies, there would only be an outer rim of fast moving matter.
11. There is not enough matter in the universe to explain the origin of matter and stars. The universe is 100 times less dense than the Big Bang theory requires. Where is this “missing mass”? This too little matter could not form stars.
12. The Big Bang would only produce hydrogen and helium, not the other 90 elements.
13. The nuclear gaps at atomic mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to produce any heavier elements, because neither a proton or neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. If it were not for this important “helium mass 4 gap”, the sun would radiate uranium towards earth. There is
no stable atom of atomic mass 5 or 8. So a hydrogen fusion reaction (bomb) combines hydrogen to form deuterium, which doubles to form Helium 4 and stops there. Hence a hydrogen explosion (even in a star), does not cross mass 5 gap (E.g. H=1.008; Deuterium=2.016; He=4.006; Lithium=6.939; Berylium=9.012; Boron=10.811, etc.).
14. There are no first-generation stars (containing only hydrogen and helium) in the sky, which supposedly exploded to give second-generation stars, as the Big Bang theory requires.
15. Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits of suns, binary stars, galaxies, star clusters, planets and moons.
16. There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the heavier elements. We can see stars up to 15 billion light years away, but why are we not seeing many stellar explosions far out in space? Because the Big Bang theory is wrong. The stars are doing fine.
17. The most distant stars, which evolutionists date to the time of the Big Bang, are not exploding, and yet contain heavier elements.
18. According to the Big Bang theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But all stars, from ‘young’ to ‘old’, have similar amounts of heavy elements
19. Why do some stars spin backward to other stars? The Big Bang theory can’t explain this.

20. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could super fast straight line motion from a Big Bang change to rotating and orbiting motion with angular momentum?
21. Why is the universe so “lumpy” with galaxies grouped into galaxy clusters, which are grouped into larger super clusters?
22. Evolutionists claim that background radiation in space is the best evidence that the Big Bang occurred as the last remnant of a Big Bang explosion. This is wrong because:

a) It comes from all directions except one direction being the Big Bang source.
b) The radiation is too weak to fit the theory. (Fred Hoyle).
c) It lacks the required 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.
d) The spectrum should be a much hotter 100oK black body spectrum than its 2.73K spectrum.
e) It is too smooth.

Instead, this background radiation is what we’d expect from the billions of stars in the universe.

23. According to Big Bang theory, the further we look out into space, the further back into time we see. This means that the furthest stars and galaxies should be the youngest.
Yet research shows that furthest away stars are just like those nearby.
24. If Big Bang theory were true, all stars would be moving in the same direction, but stars, clusters and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another.
25. Every star is redshifted to some extent. The further a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. Big Bang theory concludes that this proves that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang. They base this on the hypothesis that the “speed theory” of redshift is the only cause of the redshift. (If light is travelling towards us, the wavelength is compressed or blueshifted. If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out or redshifted.).

Other explanations for this redshift are:

a) Gravitational redshift. In 1915, Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light and thus cause a redshift. This was later proven correct. As light travels towards us from distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to be shifted towards the red.

b) Second-order Doppler shift: A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be redshifted. This would be explained by the universe moving slowly in a vast circle around a centre.

c) Energy loss redshift: Light waves may lose energy as they travel across long distances. Big Bang theory maintains that the speed redshift is the only cause of the redshift, so they can say that the universe is expanding outwards as a result of the Big Bang. Speed redshift is not the only cause of redshift because:
   a) Nearly all stars and galaxies are redshifted. If Big Bang theory really occurred, the universe would be rushing out from where the explosion occurred, not away from earth. If there was a Big Bang we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts.
   b) The closest stars and galaxies are the least redshifted. The further away a star is, the more would gravitational and energy loss redshifts slow it.
   c) Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift. Some quasars have redshifts of 300% which equals speeds over 90% of the speed of light. Some quasars have redshifts of 400%.

Three quasars, according to the speed theory are moving faster than the speed of light.

One quasar appears to be moving 8 times faster than light, which is impossible.

26. Most binary stars circling one another are of different composition. Big Bang theory can’t explain this.
27. Stars within globular clusters ought to be all crashing into one another if any nonthinking force brought them together, but they are not.
28. Stars never get closer than 3.5 light years apart. Would randomness produce this? No.
29. Stellar evolution is non-observable. Stars are not evolving in space. Plants and animals are not evolving on earth.
30. The sun would have to spin extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates very slowly.
31. Big Bang theory cannot explain where stars, planets and moons originated, nor how they arrived at their present precise, intricate orbits. How could every moon be located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet, from a Big Bang explosion?
32. Uranus and Venus rotate backward compared to all the other planets. The other 7 rotate forward.
33. One third of the 60 moons rotate opposite to the rotational direction of their planets.

Why?

34. Our planets and moons are so strikingly different that they could not have originated from the same Big Bang source. “If you look at all the planets and the 60 or so satellites (moons), it’s very hard to find two that are the same.” (Ross Taylor of ANU Canberra, in “The Solar Systems New Diversity”, Richard Kerr, Science 265, 2 Sep 1994, p.1360).
35. The chemical makeup of Earth’s moon and Earth are distinctly different, implying that the moon formed under different conditions.
36. Nearly all of Saturn’s 17 moons are extremely different. It has 3 sets of moons sharing the same orbit. Some moons travel clockwise, others travel anti-clockwise. The surface
of Iapetus is 5 times darker on one side than the other. Hyperion is potato shaped.
Enceladus has an extremely smooth surface, whereas other moons are much rougher.
Why? Titan’s atmosphere is thicker than earth’s.
How could all these moons originate by chance?
Elemental Forces of the Universe.
37. Gravity Force is perfectly balanced.
a) If gravity were stronger, smaller stars could not form.
b) If gravity were weaker, bigger stars could not form, no heavy elements could exist,
only dwarf stars would exist, which would radiate light too feebly to support life.
38. Proton/Neutron mass ratio
The neutron mass can only exceed the proton mass by twice the electron’s mass (About 1
part per 1000).
a) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were less, atoms would fly apart.
b) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were greater, atoms would crush together, quickly
decaying into a neutron, positron and neutrino, thus destroying hydrogen, the main
element in the universe.
The Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than a
neutron’s mass, otherwise the universe would collapse. If protons decayed, the universe
would collapse.
39. Photon mass to Baryon mass ratio.
If this ratio were higher, stars and galaxies could not hold together by gravitational
attraction.
40. Nuclear force holds an atom together.
a) If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavier elements.

b) If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen but only heavier elements. With no
hydrogen there would be no stable stars, and no life.
c) If it were 1% weaker or stronger, carbon could not exist, nor could life exist.
d) If it were 2% stronger, protons could not exist.
41. Electromagnetic Force in an atom binds negative charged electrons to a positively charged
nucleus
a) If it were smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form.
b) If the electron charge were 3 times larger, no element could exist other than
hydrogen.
c) If the electron charge were one-third as large, all neutral atoms would be destroyed
by the lowest heat-such as is found in outer space.
Conclusion: It would be impossible for evolution to produce the correct balance of these
forces. They were planned. These 4 basic forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and
strong nuclear forces) differ so greatly in strength, that the strongest is 1040 times stronger
than the weakest of them. Yet Big Bang theory mathematics requires that all basic forces
had to be the same strength before and just after the Big Bang Explosion occurred.
Evolutionists cannot claim that these precise, delicate balances of forces occurred by
“natural selection”, or “mutations”, for we are here dealing with the basic properties of
matter. There is no room for gradual “evolving”. The proton-neutron mass ratio has always
been the same. It will not change. It began just right. There was no second chance. This
applies to all the other forces and balances in elemental matter and the laws of physics
governing them.
If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will find theories about the origin of
the universe and stars stated with great certainty to the public.
By 1970, so much scientific data had repudiated the basic aspects of various cosmologies,
that in April 1972, the top minds in stellar physics, chemistry and astronomy gathered at the
Nice Symposium to resolve: a) How did the first cloud break apart and change into stars?
b) How did the gas clouds whirl to form stellar objects to solve the angular momentum
problem?
c) How did the gas push itself into solids?
d) How did the planets, with their present properties and solar distances form?
If you attend such a closed-door conference, you will find worried men, desperate theories,
scientific facts condemning these theories, a lack of alternative explanations, an atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven ideas, and no solutions or scientific experiments to alleviate the situation.

Key: The problem is that evolutionists do not want the public to know that scientists cannot figure out how galaxies, stars and planets originated.

[Enoch2021]

On 9/11/2017 at 5:45 AM, KiwiChristian said:

Key: The problem is that evolutionists do not want the public to know that scientists cannot figure out how galaxies, stars and planets originated.

1.  The key Problem for 'evolutionists' is defining what "evolution" IS.  

2.  In the way they are Portrayed (In Secular Shangri La)...There are no: Galaxies, Stars, or Planets.

 

regards

[KiwiChristian]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

1.  The key Problem for 'evolutionists' is defining what "evolution" IS.  

2.  In the way they are Portrayed (In Secular Shangri La)...There are no: Galaxies, Stars, or Planets.

 

regards

1. True. Are we talking changes within a kind? ie: big dogs, little dogs, black dogs, brown dogs? Or are we talking about dogs coming from non-dogs?

 

[Kevinb]

11 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

15 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

1.  The key Problem for 'evolutionists' is defining what "evolution" IS.  

2.  In the way they are Portrayed (In Secular Shangri La)...There are no: Galaxies, Stars, or Planets.

So rejecting the secular... what are the stars then? Any evidence to corroberate?

Quick search kiwi in big bang evidence lead to this link. Not pasting pages here as volume is massive as you'll see. Hope it helps.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Incidentally if you think the big bang model is wrong. Doesnt ergo mean another is right. You still need to demonstrate evidence for some alternative or it's one big old arguement from incredulity and or ignorance fallacy.

 

[Justin Adams]

Macro evolution: i.e. changes in a species. Say bred for long hair vs short hair. That seems reasonable.

This verse comes to mind: "He stretched the stars out in the heavens..". Could that easily be literal? Thus ages do no matter but the source does. If He decided to use planet earth to do this from, AU do not really matter much, nor Doppler, nor red-shift. However, we learned how to make radar from these benchmark ideas. So knowing about them is great for our creation of new things based on His ideas in the first place.

Since I see literally that God made all that was made from nothing, it hold that He can have seven electrons zooming around one nucleus and it would work. I guess since He designed it all, and we are discovering His designs, it really does beg the question of His inclusion of our minds into the equation;  knowing that we could easily split the atom (BANG) or use nuclear isotopes medicinally.

Evolution as my kids were force-fed in school is laughable - most of the proof texts were outdated and already debunked. Anyway, irreducible complexity seems to muddy the waters even for staunch evolutionists.

Just a thought, but how do you evolve half and eye? Is not the organism quickly eaten whilst the other half evolves??

Yes. There is a horrible amount of disinformation out there being fed to our children in schools... c'est la vie!

Edited September 13, 2017 by Justin Adams
mispellings

[Kevinb]

19 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Macro evolution: i.e. changes in a species. Say bred for long hair vs short hair. That seems reasonable.

This verse comes to mind: "He stretched the stars out in the heavens..". Could that easily be literal? Thus ages do no matter but the source does. If He decided to use planet earth to do this from, AU do not really matter much, nor Doppler, nor red-shift. However, we learned how to make radar from these benchmark ideas. So knowing about them is great for our creation of new things based on His ideas in the first place.

Since I see literally that God made all that was made from nothing, it hold that He can have seven electrons zooming around one nucleus and it would work. I guess since He designed it all, and we are discovering His designs, it really does beg the question of His inclusion of our minds into the equation;  knowing that we could easily split the atom (BANG) or use nuclear isotopes medicinally.

Evolution as my kids were force-fed in school is laughable - most of the proof texts were outdated and already debunked. Anyway, irreducible complexity seems to muddy the waters even for staunch evolutionists.

Just a thought, but how do you evolve half and eye? Is not the organism quickly eaten whilst the other half evolves??

Yes. There is a horrible amount of disinformation out there being fed to our children in schools... c'est la vie!

 

Half an eye thing is an old and tired statement.

Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following:

Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999).

Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from.

Most mammals have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white.

Visual prosthetics (bionic eyes) with as few as 16 pixels are found to be very useful by people who had become blind (Wickelgren 2006, Fildes 2007). 

Humans themselves have far from perfect vision: 
 

Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.)

Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees.

Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish.

Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees.

Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies.

Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996).

The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range.

The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision.

Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not.

The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above.

The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gislén et al. 2003).

Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes.

Chameleons and seahorses can move each eye independent of the other.

If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of.

Links:

Bahar, Sonya, 2002. Evolution of the eye: Lessons from freshman physics and Richard Dawkins. The Biological Physicist 2(2): 2-5.http://www.aps.org/units/dbp/newsletter/jun02.pdf

References:

Fildes, Jonathan. 2007. Trials for 'bionic' eye implants.BBC News, 2/16/2007.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6368089.stm

Gislén, A. et al., 2003. Superior underwater vision in a human population of sea gypsies. Current Biology 13: 833-836. http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982203002902 See also Pilcher, Helen R., 2003. How to see shells on the sea floor,http://www.nature.com/nsu/030512/030512-14.html

Kreimer, Georg, 1999. Reflective properties of different eyespot types in dinoflagellates. Protist 150: 311-323.http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/protist/content/issue3/Pro0021.pdf

Wickelgren, Ingrid. 2006. A vision for the blind.Science 312: 1124-1126.

Zimmer, Carl, 1996. The light at the bottom of the sea.Discover (Nov.): 62-66,71-73.

Zorpette, Glenn, 2000. Looking for Madam Tetrachromat. Red Herring (4 Dec.),http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue86/mag-mutant-86.html (registration required)

Unless you mean the eye is too complex to possibly evolve?

This is the quintessential example of theargument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872). 
 

photosensitive cell

aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin

pigment cells forming a small depression

pigment cells forming a deeper depression

the skin over the depression taking a lens shape

muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists. 

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system. 

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

Links:

Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html

Ever seen the dover trial usa where the biologists debunk a bunk of irreducible complex arguements? Where Christians tried to stop evolution being taught? The bacterial flagellum most famously.

In any case how do you demonstrate design and a designer demonstrably? Analogy...assertion... faith?  

19 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Since I see literally that God made all that was made from nothing

You see that... can you demonstrate he did? In the universe big bang sense? 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Kevinb

[Justin Adams]

I concede that you make good points. However, you cannot make any points about what I see!

"Since I see literally that God made all that was made from nothing"

[Enoch2021]

33 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

I concede that you make good points. However, you cannot make any points about what I see!

He made ZERO Points let alone anything "Good".

He can't even DEFINE what he's providing non-evidence for. 

 

regards

[Justin Adams]

Agreed. Decided to bow out.

Thanks.

[siegi91]

On 9/11/2017 at 12:45 PM, KiwiChristian said:

Sorry, this is long. But this is an important topic.

Either God created everything, or NOTHING exploded and became SOMETHING.

 

For me, one of the main reasons i believe in God is the sheer impossibility of the alternative.

We are living on a 6,371 km diameter rock, hurtling through space at a speed of 30 km/sec 93 million miles away from a 27 million degrees Fahrenheit inferno and no-one in charge.

The Bible is not a book. It is a COLLECTION of 66 books, written over a span of 1600 years, across three continents by over 40 writers inspired by God in three languages.

 

 

Big Bang Baloney- EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE BIG BANG THEORY

Did the Universe begin with a super explosion of a small mass 10 billion years ago?

Briefly, the following problems are observed in our solar system that defy the Big Bang
explanation:

1. Uranus and Venus rotate in the opposite direction to the other planets.
2. Some planets have eccentric or tilted orbits.
3. Some planet’s satellite moons move in retrograde (backwards) motion.
4. Our moon has a lower density than earth. If it was thrown out from earth, it’s density would be more.
5. The sun’s angular momentum is 1/200th of the planets.

This small angular momentum makes it unlikely that the planets could be thrown out of the sun.

Source: “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation”. D.R. Peterson, p.45.

Big Bang theory says that a large quantity of nothing condensed by gravity into a single tiny spot and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets and moons.

Question: What is wrong with this theory? A lot!

1. Nothingness cannot pack together.
2. There would be no ignition to explode a speck of nothingness.
3. The theoretical explosion would fall back on itself giving a theoretical black
hole. R L St. Peter, 1974.

4. There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter exists. (Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p.343).
5. The anti-matter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter.
6. There is no way to unite all the outward rushing particles from the central
explosion, because they would keep getting farther apart over time travelled. (See Novotny’s research).
7. The particles would maintain the same speed and direction forever, with no way for them to begin circling each other as gas clouds. Linear motion would not change to angular momentum.
8. Neither hydrogen or helium in outer space would clump together, because gases on earth push apart, but never clump together. Gas clouds in space expand, and don’t contract to form anything.
9. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.
10. If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of evenly mixed stars and galaxies, there would only be an outer rim of fast moving matter.
11. There is not enough matter in the universe to explain the origin of matter and stars. The universe is 100 times less dense than the Big Bang theory requires. Where is this “missing mass”? This too little matter could not form stars.
12. The Big Bang would only produce hydrogen and helium, not the other 90 elements.
13. The nuclear gaps at atomic mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to produce any heavier elements, because neither a proton or neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. If it were not for this important “helium mass 4 gap”, the sun would radiate uranium towards earth. There is
no stable atom of atomic mass 5 or 8. So a hydrogen fusion reaction (bomb) combines hydrogen to form deuterium, which doubles to form Helium 4 and stops there. Hence a hydrogen explosion (even in a star), does not cross mass 5 gap (E.g. H=1.008; Deuterium=2.016; He=4.006; Lithium=6.939; Berylium=9.012; Boron=10.811, etc.).
14. There are no first-generation stars (containing only hydrogen and helium) in the sky, which supposedly exploded to give second-generation stars, as the Big Bang theory requires.
15. Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits of suns, binary stars, galaxies, star clusters, planets and moons.
16. There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the heavier elements. We can see stars up to 15 billion light years away, but why are we not seeing many stellar explosions far out in space? Because the Big Bang theory is wrong. The stars are doing fine.
17. The most distant stars, which evolutionists date to the time of the Big Bang, are not exploding, and yet contain heavier elements.
18. According to the Big Bang theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But all stars, from ‘young’ to ‘old’, have similar amounts of heavy elements
19. Why do some stars spin backward to other stars? The Big Bang theory can’t explain this.

20. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could super fast straight line motion from a Big Bang change to rotating and orbiting motion with angular momentum?
21. Why is the universe so “lumpy” with galaxies grouped into galaxy clusters, which are grouped into larger super clusters?
22. Evolutionists claim that background radiation in space is the best evidence that the Big Bang occurred as the last remnant of a Big Bang explosion. This is wrong because:

a) It comes from all directions except one direction being the Big Bang source.
b) The radiation is too weak to fit the theory. (Fred Hoyle).
c) It lacks the required 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.
d) The spectrum should be a much hotter 100oK black body spectrum than its 2.73K spectrum.
e) It is too smooth.

Instead, this background radiation is what we’d expect from the billions of stars in the universe.

23. According to Big Bang theory, the further we look out into space, the further back into time we see. This means that the furthest stars and galaxies should be the youngest.
Yet research shows that furthest away stars are just like those nearby.
24. If Big Bang theory were true, all stars would be moving in the same direction, but stars, clusters and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another.
25. Every star is redshifted to some extent. The further a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. Big Bang theory concludes that this proves that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang. They base this on the hypothesis that the “speed theory” of redshift is the only cause of the redshift. (If light is travelling towards us, the wavelength is compressed or blueshifted. If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out or redshifted.).

Other explanations for this redshift are:

a) Gravitational redshift. In 1915, Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light and thus cause a redshift. This was later proven correct. As light travels towards us from distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to be shifted towards the red.

b) Second-order Doppler shift: A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be redshifted. This would be explained by the universe moving slowly in a vast circle around a centre.

c) Energy loss redshift: Light waves may lose energy as they travel across long distances. Big Bang theory maintains that the speed redshift is the only cause of the redshift, so they can say that the universe is expanding outwards as a result of the Big Bang. Speed redshift is not the only cause of redshift because:
   a) Nearly all stars and galaxies are redshifted. If Big Bang theory really occurred, the universe would be rushing out from where the explosion occurred, not away from earth. If there was a Big Bang we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts.
   b) The closest stars and galaxies are the least redshifted. The further away a star is, the more would gravitational and energy loss redshifts slow it.
   c) Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift. Some quasars have redshifts of 300% which equals speeds over 90% of the speed of light. Some quasars have redshifts of 400%.

Three quasars, according to the speed theory are moving faster than the speed of light.

One quasar appears to be moving 8 times faster than light, which is impossible.

26. Most binary stars circling one another are of different composition. Big Bang theory can’t explain this.
27. Stars within globular clusters ought to be all crashing into one another if any nonthinking force brought them together, but they are not.
28. Stars never get closer than 3.5 light years apart. Would randomness produce this? No.
29. Stellar evolution is non-observable. Stars are not evolving in space. Plants and animals are not evolving on earth.
30. The sun would have to spin extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates very slowly.
31. Big Bang theory cannot explain where stars, planets and moons originated, nor how they arrived at their present precise, intricate orbits. How could every moon be located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet, from a Big Bang explosion?
32. Uranus and Venus rotate backward compared to all the other planets. The other 7 rotate forward.
33. One third of the 60 moons rotate opposite to the rotational direction of their planets.

Why?

34. Our planets and moons are so strikingly different that they could not have originated from the same Big Bang source. “If you look at all the planets and the 60 or so satellites (moons), it’s very hard to find two that are the same.” (Ross Taylor of ANU Canberra, in “The Solar Systems New Diversity”, Richard Kerr, Science 265, 2 Sep 1994, p.1360).
35. The chemical makeup of Earth’s moon and Earth are distinctly different, implying that the moon formed under different conditions.
36. Nearly all of Saturn’s 17 moons are extremely different. It has 3 sets of moons sharing the same orbit. Some moons travel clockwise, others travel anti-clockwise. The surface
of Iapetus is 5 times darker on one side than the other. Hyperion is potato shaped.
Enceladus has an extremely smooth surface, whereas other moons are much rougher.
Why? Titan’s atmosphere is thicker than earth’s.
How could all these moons originate by chance?
Elemental Forces of the Universe.
37. Gravity Force is perfectly balanced.
a) If gravity were stronger, smaller stars could not form.
b) If gravity were weaker, bigger stars could not form, no heavy elements could exist,
only dwarf stars would exist, which would radiate light too feebly to support life.
38. Proton/Neutron mass ratio
The neutron mass can only exceed the proton mass by twice the electron’s mass (About 1
part per 1000).
a) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were less, atoms would fly apart.
b) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were greater, atoms would crush together, quickly
decaying into a neutron, positron and neutrino, thus destroying hydrogen, the main
element in the universe.
The Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than a
neutron’s mass, otherwise the universe would collapse. If protons decayed, the universe
would collapse.
39. Photon mass to Baryon mass ratio.
If this ratio were higher, stars and galaxies could not hold together by gravitational
attraction.
40. Nuclear force holds an atom together.
a) If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavier elements.

b) If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen but only heavier elements. With no
hydrogen there would be no stable stars, and no life.
c) If it were 1% weaker or stronger, carbon could not exist, nor could life exist.
d) If it were 2% stronger, protons could not exist.
41. Electromagnetic Force in an atom binds negative charged electrons to a positively charged
nucleus
a) If it were smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form.
b) If the electron charge were 3 times larger, no element could exist other than
hydrogen.
c) If the electron charge were one-third as large, all neutral atoms would be destroyed
by the lowest heat-such as is found in outer space.
Conclusion: It would be impossible for evolution to produce the correct balance of these
forces. They were planned. These 4 basic forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and
strong nuclear forces) differ so greatly in strength, that the strongest is 1040 times stronger
than the weakest of them. Yet Big Bang theory mathematics requires that all basic forces
had to be the same strength before and just after the Big Bang Explosion occurred.
Evolutionists cannot claim that these precise, delicate balances of forces occurred by
“natural selection”, or “mutations”, for we are here dealing with the basic properties of
matter. There is no room for gradual “evolving”. The proton-neutron mass ratio has always
been the same. It will not change. It began just right. There was no second chance. This
applies to all the other forces and balances in elemental matter and the laws of physics
governing them.
If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will find theories about the origin of
the universe and stars stated with great certainty to the public.
By 1970, so much scientific data had repudiated the basic aspects of various cosmologies,
that in April 1972, the top minds in stellar physics, chemistry and astronomy gathered at the
Nice Symposium to resolve: a) How did the first cloud break apart and change into stars?
b) How did the gas clouds whirl to form stellar objects to solve the angular momentum
problem?
c) How did the gas push itself into solids?
d) How did the planets, with their present properties and solar distances form?
If you attend such a closed-door conference, you will find worried men, desperate theories,
scientific facts condemning these theories, a lack of alternative explanations, an atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven ideas, and no solutions or scientific experiments to alleviate the situation.

Key: The problem is that evolutionists do not want the public to know that scientists cannot figure out how galaxies, stars and planets originated.

Well, I am not sure what you are trying to knock down here, but for sure it is not the BB theory.

Take for example just one of your rebuttals: "a) It (Background radiation) comes from all directions except one direction being the Big Bang source."

You seem to believe that the BB is one huge explosion that took place at a certain place in a pre-existing space. You know, something like many billions miles in that direction. Well, that is not what the BB theory entails. As a matter of fact, the theory entails that space itself "originated" with the BB, so whatever happened took place "everywhere". So, to say that the BB happened somewhere is absurd.

But your fallacy is very common. And understandable. Scientists and sophisticated laymen commit it too, and very frequently. Maybe not with space but with time. Alas, our brain evolved in such a way, for survival reasons, that makes the existence of time as a separate entity from space a stubborn illusion difficult to get rid of, apparently. 

Don't we hear all the time that the Universe began 13.8 billions years ago? Or that it is 13.8 billions years old? Well, that is as absurd as saying that the Universe began in New Jersey. No matter if it is 13,8 billions of years or any time interval you want to plug in there.

The Universe, if spacetime is one of its constituents, did not begin to exist, neither in space nor in time, for obvious reasons. Even if the BB were accurate. as it seems to be. Therefore, the very word "origin" is not applicable to the Universe, at least as long as one of the basic premises of Big Bang cosmology (relativity) is assumed to be true.

 siegi

 

 

Edited October 23, 2017 by siegi91