| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
09 Jul 2007 01:19:17 PM |
| Object: |
Science Disproves Evolution |
Missing Mass
Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from
Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their
masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a
very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar
relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an
obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a
common point in a huge "big bang" (a). It is even more obvious that if
such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than
billions of years ago.
Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways. They assume the
universe is filled with at least ten times as much matter as can be
seen. This is maintained even though three decades of searching for
this "missing mass" have turned up nothing other than the conclusion
that it does not exist {b).
A second "fix attempt" assumes that the rocks (or, in the real
problem, all particles in the universe) were briefly, almost
magically, accelerated away from some point. This process, called
inflation, supposedly reached speeds billions of trillions of times
faster than the speed of light. An instant later, and for no apparent
reason, inflation stopped. All this happened by an unknown, untestable
phenomenon-not by a blast. Then this matter became controlled by
gravity after it reached just the right speed to give the universe an
age (based on one set of assumptions) of about 13.7 billion years.
This is called the "inflationary big bang." It was proposed by Alan H.
Guth in a paper titled "A Possible Solution to the Horizon and
Flatness Problem" in Physical Review, D, Vol. 23, 15 January 1981, pp.
348-356.
Such flights of imagination and speculation are common in the field
of cosmology.
a. This problem was first explained by R. H. Dicke, "Gravitation and
the Universe: The Jayne Lectures for 1969," American Philosophical
Society of Philadelphia, 1970, p. 62. Alan Guth's attempt to solve it
(see "c" below) led to the "inflationary big bang theory."
b. This missing mass is called dark matter, because it cannot be seen
and, so far, has not been detected. Candidates for "missing mass"
include neutrinos, black holes, dead stars, low-mass stars, and
various subatomic particles and objects dreamed up by cosmologists
simply to solve this problem. Each candidate has many scientific
problems.
One study of two adjacent galaxies shows they have relatively little
dark matter. [See Ron Cowen, "Ringing In a New Estimate for Dark
Matter," Science News, Vol. 136, 5 August 1989, p. 84.]
Another study found no missing mass within 150 million light-years of
Earth. [See Eric J. Lerner, "COBE Confounds the Cosmologists,"
Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 40-41.]
A third study found no dark matter in a large elliptical galaxy, M105.
[See "Dark Matter Isn't Everywhere," Astronomy, September 1993, pp. 19-
20.]
A fourth study found no dark matter in the main body of our galaxy.
[See Alexander Hellemans, "Galactic Disk Contains No Dark Matter,"
Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
A fifth study, after cataloging the positions and distances of 100
million galaxies, concluded that the needed mass does not exist. [See
Ron Cowen, "Whole-Sky Catalog," Science News, Vol. 155, 6 February
1999, pp. 92-93.]
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are
Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: morontheist disproves itself (again) |
09 Jul 2007 10:25:38 PM |
|
|
*chuckle*
It's amusing, ain't it?, how this moron keeps bragging about "disproving
evolution" and then trying (in vain) to disprove big bang theory, something
totally different from evolution...
"idiots for jebus" anyone?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Christians never tire of telling lies |
09 Jul 2007 04:34:29 PM |
|
|
On Jul 9, 7:19 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Missing Mass
Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from
Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their
masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a
very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar
relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an
obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a
common point in a huge "big bang" (a). It is even more obvious that if
such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than
billions of years ago.
Evolutionists try to fix this problem
1. There is no such thing as a "Evolutionist"
2. There is no such thing as "Creation science", it is an oxymoron.
3. Nobody who argues from an a priori assumption that the universe was
created, or even anybody who entertains the possibility that there is
a creator who is currently present in this reality, and is capable of
altering any aspect of the laws of physics, let alone actively
interacting with the reality we inhabit, and approaches scientific
investigation on this basis, is a scientist.
I am assuming here - correct me if I am wrong - that your God = Walt
Brown's God = Yahweh. Well, Copernicus killed him stone dead. Deal
with it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 Jul 2007 10:09:51 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:19:17 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote the
following in alt.atheism:
Missing Mass
Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from
Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their
masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a
very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar
relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an
obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a
common point in a huge "big bang" (a). It is even more obvious that if
such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than
billions of years ago.
Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways. They assume the
universe is filled with at least ten times as much matter as can be
seen. This is maintained even though three decades of searching for
this "missing mass" have turned up nothing other than the conclusion
that it does not exist {b).
You do realize that biology deals with evolution and cosmology deals
with the beginning of the universe, don't you?
Is this confusion deliberate or simply the result of ignorance?
http://www.creationscience.com/
I see. It's the result of deliberate ignorance...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
09 Jul 2007 10:20:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:19:17 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Missing Mass
Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from
Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their
masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a
very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar
relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies
There's no such relationship, since the various galaxies weren't
"blasted away" from anything. They formed where they are.
If you don't understand the simple difference between the expansion of
space and something being blasted, you don't know enough to even ask
questions about cosmology, let alone to tell others about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 Jul 2007 07:08:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:19:17 -0700, Pahu wrote:
Missing Mass
Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from
Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their
masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a
very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar
relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an
obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a
common point in a huge "big bang" (a). It is even more obvious that if
such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than
billions of years ago.
Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways. They assume the
universe is filled with at least ten times as much matter as can be
seen. This is maintained even though three decades of searching for
this "missing mass" have turned up nothing other than the conclusion
that it does not exist {b).
Actually, there have been several recent articles published indicating
that dark matter *IS* being found. In typical creationist fashion, the
argument from ignorance gets knocked down as new discoveries are made.
A second "fix attempt" assumes that the rocks (or, in the real problem,
all particles in the universe) were briefly, almost magically,
accelerated away from some point. This process, called inflation,
supposedly reached speeds billions of trillions of times faster than the
speed of light. An instant later, and for no apparent reason, inflation
stopped. All this happened by an unknown, untestable phenomenon-not by a
blast. Then this matter became controlled by gravity after it reached
just the right speed to give the universe an age (based on one set of
assumptions) of about 13.7 billion years. This is called the
"inflationary big bang." It was proposed by Alan H. Guth in a paper
titled "A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problem" in
Physical Review, D, Vol. 23, 15 January 1981, pp. 348-356.
Such flights of imagination and speculation are common in the field
of cosmology.
a. This problem was first explained by R. H. Dicke, "Gravitation and the
Universe: The Jayne Lectures for 1969," American Philosophical Society
of Philadelphia, 1970, p. 62. Alan Guth's attempt to solve it (see "c"
below) led to the "inflationary big bang theory."
b. This missing mass is called dark matter, because it cannot be seen
and, so far, has not been detected. Candidates for "missing mass"
include neutrinos, black holes, dead stars, low-mass stars, and various
subatomic particles and objects dreamed up by cosmologists simply to
solve this problem. Each candidate has many scientific problems.
One study of two adjacent galaxies shows they have relatively little
dark matter. [See Ron Cowen, "Ringing In a New Estimate for Dark
Matter," Science News, Vol. 136, 5 August 1989, p. 84.]
Another study found no missing mass within 150 million light-years of
Earth. [See Eric J. Lerner, "COBE Confounds the Cosmologists," Aerospace
America, March 1990, pp. 40-41.]
A third study found no dark matter in a large elliptical galaxy, M105.
[See "Dark Matter Isn't Everywhere," Astronomy, September 1993, pp. 19-
20.]
A fourth study found no dark matter in the main body of our galaxy. [See
Alexander Hellemans, "Galactic Disk Contains No Dark Matter," Science,
Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
A fifth study, after cataloging the positions and distances of 100
million galaxies, concluded that the needed mass does not exist. [See
Ron Cowen, "Whole-Sky Catalog," Science News, Vol. 155, 6 February 1999,
pp. 92-93.]
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are
Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
The scientific community breathlessly awaits your improved theory of life,
the Universe, and Everything. And no, "Goddidit" is NOT an acceptable
answer.
http://www.creationscience.com/
The irony of using the Internet to promote anti-intellectualism.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
09 Jul 2007 06:03:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:19:17 -0700, Pahu wrote:
Missing Mass
Yeah, your brain...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Warned you we tried! Listen you did not! Now screwed
we will all be!"
http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
09 Jul 2007 02:58:00 PM |
|
|
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> said:
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are
Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
http://www.creationscience.com/
A web site that it not above equivocating on "evolution".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
09 Jul 2007 10:01:22 PM |
|
|
Pahu wrote:
Missing Mass
Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways.
Evolutionists don't deal with such things.
Aside from that the rest is crap. Your source, by definition, does not
practise science.
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|