Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
I find this whole anti-evolution thing very sad. I wish Americans could see how silly they sound when they bang on about it. There are plenty of Christians who have no problems with evolution. The Church in Darwin's own day accepted it with no problems. It was only tiny groups of people in the USA that had problems. Sadly, they have recruited more and more people due to the very low levels of scientific education in America.
You can't read a book and be an expert on evolution. Try a biologogy degree, and then perhaps a Masters, and put in a degree focusing on gentics as well. At least have some respect for education. I don't want to sound arrogant (actually, that is a sin of mine, I confess) but in most Western countries people can get good educations without it costing huge amounts of money so evolution is more accepted.
Arguments against evolution (that it is just a 'theory') show that people do not even understand what the word 'theory' means in science (something I learnt when I was like 10). It is possible to beleive in God and not be badly educated. We have books. We have the internet. For most people there is no excuse.
You can't read a book and be an expert on evolution. Try a biologogy degree, and then perhaps a Masters, and put in a degree focusing on gentics as well. At least have some respect for education. I don't want to sound arrogant (actually, that is a sin of mine, I confess) but in most Western countries people can get good educations without it costing huge amounts of money so evolution is more accepted.
Arguments against evolution (that it is just a 'theory') show that people do not even understand what the word 'theory' means in science (something I learnt when I was like 10). It is possible to beleive in God and not be badly educated. We have books. We have the internet. For most people there is no excuse.
M
You don't think it's a problem. Evolution/Big bang/Abiogenesis has shaped and distorted the worldview of many. On one hand, you have the view that we are all created in God's image, that we all have an inherent value, and as such, we should value others as well. Then you have the evolutionary view, the belief that we're nothing more than a product of nature and random happenstance, that we weren't created in God's image, and there's no intelligent designer. If you don't think such a view is dangerous to how a person views and treats other people, then just look at what goes on in our schools today, and look how society is turning out. If that still isn't enough, take some psychology classes, since you seem to be big on education.
I know people who have a master's in biology and don't accept the evolutionary claims about billions of years ago.
You keep talking under the assumption that the claims about events from billions of years ago are absolute fact, despite the fact that you cannot prove any of them, and the fact that they're completely unscientific and don't follow the scientific method whatsoever. But that doesn't matter to you, right? Just believe what you're dogmatically told to believe and don't question evolution.
I know people who have a master's in biology and don't accept the evolutionary claims about billions of years ago.
You keep talking under the assumption that the claims about events from billions of years ago are absolute fact, despite the fact that you cannot prove any of them, and the fact that they're completely unscientific and don't follow the scientific method whatsoever. But that doesn't matter to you, right? Just believe what you're dogmatically told to believe and don't question evolution.
D
You look through the eyes of evolution and you see that life is infinitely more precious and wonderful than you could ever have imagined. We weren't just created by a random being as is and then told to not bother looking at the wonders of the universe and our own existence.
To a true scientist and to a true evolutionary biologist - every life, human, animal, insect is wonderful and unique and worthy of study and saving.
Equating evolution and science with a deterioration in morals or increase in school danger is short sighted and untrue. More people kill and maim and do horrific things to their fellow humans in the name of religion
To a true scientist and to a true evolutionary biologist - every life, human, animal, insect is wonderful and unique and worthy of study and saving.
Equating evolution and science with a deterioration in morals or increase in school danger is short sighted and untrue. More people kill and maim and do horrific things to their fellow humans in the name of religion
Evolution isn't a theory, it's not even a hypothesis.
In Darwin's day they thought flies (insects) spontaneously generated from rancid meat.
Louis Pasture would disprove that twenty years later.
No simpleton needs to get a master's degree to see there is no such thing as a 'simple single cell'.
Billions of code in just the right place to make it work.
Honestly, for one to believe in 'evolution' they must willingly be ignorant anymore........
Good Grief
In Darwin's day they thought flies (insects) spontaneously generated from rancid meat.
Louis Pasture would disprove that twenty years later.
No simpleton needs to get a master's degree to see there is no such thing as a 'simple single cell'.
Billions of code in just the right place to make it work.
Honestly, for one to believe in 'evolution' they must willingly be ignorant anymore........
Good Grief
Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think. Consider the following perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence. We recognize that some people believe that God used evolution to create and that evolution is compatible with the Bible; however, a careful reading shows, in dozens of ways, that it is not.
1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?
2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?
Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.
3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?
Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.
4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.
5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].” Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist.
6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.
7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.
Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has.
8. Social Darwinism. If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.
Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings.
9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.
Response: That philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.
10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?
Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.
11. Marriage. If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?
Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.
12. Racism. If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.
Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.
13. Abortion. We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right? Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem. We must guide our destiny.
Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.
Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.
Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.
Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.
Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.
Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?
2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?
Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.
3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?
Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.
4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.
5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].” Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist.
6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.
7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.
Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has.
8. Social Darwinism. If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.
Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings.
9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.
Response: That philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.
10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?
Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.
11. Marriage. If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?
Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.
12. Racism. If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.
Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.
13. Abortion. We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right? Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem. We must guide our destiny.
Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.
Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.
Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.
Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.
Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.
Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
M
Where are you pulling this nonsense from? It certainly isn't the Bible. So where do you get off labeling Christians as people who tell others not to bother looking at the wonders of the universe?
Evololution doesn't promote valuing life. The only purpose at the core of the emotionless evolution doctrine is that everything dies, and the only hope is that you pass your genes on so that the next generation of things that die is slightly better than the last generation of things that died.
Evololution doesn't promote valuing life. The only purpose at the core of the emotionless evolution doctrine is that everything dies, and the only hope is that you pass your genes on so that the next generation of things that die is slightly better than the last generation of things that died.
Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science! 1[SUP],[/SUP] 2[SUP],[/SUP] 3
Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:
The Preconditions of Science
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.4
Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.
Science Requires a Biblical Worldview
The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.5 Furthermore, God is consistent6 and omnipresent.7 Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.
Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature”) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.
These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past” in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.
Can an Evolutionist Do Science?
Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.9
How Would an Evolutionist Respond?
The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Genesis 8:22). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How might an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?”
One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So, I expect it always will.” But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity.10 But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity—unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So, when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity—a circular argument.
An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion;11 in other words, uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer also fails. First, it doesn’t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, but the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, we might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, he or she can only say that the universe—in the past—seems to have had some uniformity.12 But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?
Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: “Well, I can’t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, so we use it.” This answer also fails for two reasons. First, we can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there’s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless you already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet, evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. Second, the answer admits that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview—which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent: that is, if they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.
Theistic Evolution Won’t Save the Day
Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.
It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.
Evolution Is Irrational
In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.
Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.
Conclusions
Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.
Evolution: The Anti-science - Answers in Genesis
Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:
The Preconditions of Science
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.4
Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.
Science Requires a Biblical Worldview
The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.5 Furthermore, God is consistent6 and omnipresent.7 Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.
Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature”) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.
These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past” in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.
Can an Evolutionist Do Science?
Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.9
How Would an Evolutionist Respond?
The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Genesis 8:22). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How might an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?”
One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So, I expect it always will.” But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity.10 But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity—unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So, when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity—a circular argument.
An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion;11 in other words, uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer also fails. First, it doesn’t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, but the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, we might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, he or she can only say that the universe—in the past—seems to have had some uniformity.12 But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?
Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: “Well, I can’t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, so we use it.” This answer also fails for two reasons. First, we can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there’s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless you already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet, evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. Second, the answer admits that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview—which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent: that is, if they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.
Theistic Evolution Won’t Save the Day
Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.
It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.
Evolution Is Irrational
In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.
Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.
Conclusions
Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.
Evolution: The Anti-science - Answers in Genesis
Was space, along with light emitted by stars, rapidly stretched out soon after creation began? If so, energy would have been added to the universe and starlight during that stretching. Pages 396–401 show that the scientific evidence clearly favors this stretching explanation over the big bang theory, which also claims that space expanded rapidly. Yet, the big bang theory says all this expansion energy, plus all the matter in the universe, was, at the beginning of time, inside a volume much smaller than a pinhead.
At least eleven times, the Bible states that God “stretched out” or “stretches out” the heavens. [See Table 21.] For emphasis, important ideas are often repeated in the Bible. While we may have difficulty visualizing this stretching, we can be confident of its significance.
Table 21. Bible References to Stretching Out of the Heavens
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Job 9:8[/TD]
[TD]“[God] stretches out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ps 104:2[/TD]
[TD]“stretching out heaven like a tent curtain”[SUP]1[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 40:22[/TD]
[TD]“He ... stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent”[SUP]1[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 42:5[/TD]
[TD]“... God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 44:24[/TD]
[TD]“I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 45:12[/TD]
[TD]“It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 48:13[/TD]
[TD]“Surely My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 51:13[/TD]
[TD]“the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jer 10:12[/TD]
[TD]“He has stretched out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jer 51:15[/TD]
[TD]“He stretched out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Zech 12:1[/TD]
[TD]“the Lord who stretches out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]The context of each of the above verses deals with creation. Although past and present tenses (stretched and stretches) are expressed in these English translations, Hebrew verbs do not generally convey past, present, or future. Translators must rely on context and other clues to determine verb tense.
Even if we knew the intended Hebrew tense, is the stretching from God’s perspective or man’s? The creation was completed in six days (Exodus 20:11), suggesting that in God’s time the heavens were stretched out during the creation week, perhaps on Day 4. However, in our time, some redshifted light from extreme distances—a consequence of this past stretching—is reaching us now.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. It does not mean an explosion, a flinging out, or the type of stretching that encounters increasing resistance, as with a spring. Natah is more like the effortless reaching out of one’s hand.
Table 22. Comparison of Two Explanations for Expansion of the Universe
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Big Bang[/TD]
[TD]Stretching[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The universe was once much smaller. It began soon after time began and before all the laws of physics came into operation.[SUP]2[/SUP] Energy and matter appeared out of nothing.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]When did the expansion occur?[/TD]
[TD]Expansion has been going on ever since the big bang, at the instant time began.[/TD]
[TD]Expansion occurred early in the creation week, but not at the instant of creation.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Why is distant light redshifted?[/TD]
[TD]The more distant the light source, the greater the expansion rate and redshift.[/TD]
[TD]The light we see today from very distant objects shows the amount of stretching the light experienced.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Expansion began at almost a mathematical point.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[SUP]3[/SUP][/TD]
[TD]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Expansion energy came from within the universe.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[TD]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The initial temperature and density of matter was[/TD]
[TD]nearly infinite[/TD]
[TD]finite[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]All expansion energy was expended[/TD]
[TD]within a tiny fraction (10[SUP]-34[/SUP]) of a second[/TD]
[TD]as the expansion proceeded[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming[/TD]
[TD]after 500,000,000 years, in an expanded universe[/TD]
[TD]before the expansion[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The stretching explanation, proposed here, has similarities and differences with the big bang theory. Both the big bang and stretching explanations describe a very rapid expansion of the universe, soon after time began, but before all the laws of physics were in place. As one big bang authority stated:
In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity—a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply [during the big bang’s rapid expansion]. ... One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.[SUP]1[/SUP]
The stretching explanation, in contrast to the standard big bang theory, does not begin with a singularity—an infinitesimal point.[SUP]3[/SUP] Nor does the energy expended in stretching out the heavens come from within the universe or during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a ten-billionth of a second (10[SUP]-34[/SUP] second) or less, as with the big bang theory. Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 500,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were formed (or began) near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. Because matter and starlight occupy space, they were also stretched. You can decide which explanation the following surprising evidence supports.
[continue]
[continued]
The Evidence
Accelerating Expansion. The redshift of distant starlight suggests an expansion. However, a big bang should produce only a decelerating expansion, not the accelerating expansion observed. [See "Dark Thoughts" on page 32.] Stretching, completed during the creation week, could have produced the accelerated expansion which is shown by the light that has finally reached earth from the edge of the visible universe.
Star Formation. Astronomers recognize that the densest gas cloud seen in the universe today could not form stars by any known means, including gravitational collapse, unless that gas was once thousands of times more compact. [See “Interstellar Gas” on page 93.] Apparently, stars were formed before or as the heavens were stretched out.
Intergalactic Medium (IGM). Outer space is nearly a perfect vacuum. The IGM (the vast space between galaxies) contains about 10–100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. However, almost every hydrogen atom in the IGM, out to the farthest galaxies the best telescopes can see (13 billion light-years away), has been ionized—has lost its electron.
According to the big bang theory, for the first 400,000 years after the big bang, the expanding universe was so hot that all matter was ionized. Only after the universe had expanded (and cooled) enough could protons acquire an electron and become neutral hydrogen. Then, after matter in the universe was no longer ionized, stars and galaxies, according to the theory, began evolving. Had the hydrogen remained ionized, the mutual repulsion of the positive hydrogen ions would have prevented hydrogen from coming together to form stars. (Note: other reasons why stars and galaxies could not have evolved are given on pages 31–34.)
This presents a major problem. What reionized the hydrogen that today pervades the IGM? No explanation has been found. Most big-bang theorists had guessed that the radiation from the earliest stars and galaxies—after the universe had already expanded for hundreds of millions of years—was powerful enough to reionize the IGM. This now appears to not be the case.[SUP]4[/SUP]
According to the stretching explanation, when the universe was created, it was extremely compact, so the intense light of DAY 1 and/or the light of stars and galaxies (created on DAY 4) ionized the surrounding gases. Then, the heavens were stretched out. Therefore, hydrogen in the IGM has always been ionized, just as we see it today.
Black Holes. Black holes come in two varieties: massive black holes (MBHs) and stellar black holes (SBHs). MBHs are millions to a few billion times more massive that the sun. They lie at the center of every large nearby galaxy—and perhaps every galaxy. SBHs have masses that are only a few tens times greater than the sun; probably millions of SBHs are scattered throughout our Milky Way Galaxy.[SUP]5[/SUP] In both types of black holes, mass is so concentrated that nothing within a specific distance from a black hole (called the event horizon) should escape their gravity—not even light.
Astronomers admit that galaxies and black holes must have existed very soon after the universe began,[SUP]6[/SUP] but the big bang theory says that 300,000 years after the big bang (before stars formed) all matter was spread out uniformly. That uniformity would prevent gravity from forming galaxies and black holes, even over the supposed age of the universe.[SUP]7[/SUP] However, they could easily have formed or existed soon after the creation of matter and the universe, if the universe was much more compact[SUP]8[/SUP] and the heavens were stretched out before a complete collapse into one huge black hole.
Even though nothing should escape black holes, some are expelling powerful jets at “up to 99.98 percent of the speed of light. These amazing outflows traverse distances larger than galaxies.”[SUP]9[/SUP] Stars sometimes expel jets, so this paradox could be resolved if space was stretched out after stellar jets and black holes began forming.
Quasars. Quasars are the most luminous stable objects in the universe. Most black holes have already pulled in almost all the dust within their vicinity. However, some black holes are at such extreme distances from us (and therefore seen as they were far back in time) that they are seen still pulling in large amounts of nearby matter. The gravitational potential energy of all that falling matter is converted to bright radiation. The combination—a MBH with bright radiation from infalling matter—is called a quasar (quasi-stellar radio source, QUASi-stellAR). Light we are now seeing from quasars was emitted soon after time began, before most of the matter surrounding those distant MBHs was pulled into them.
One quasar has been found that has two billion times the mass of the Sun, and yet is so far from earth that big-bang theorists say it must have formed (by some unknown mechanism) very soon after the universe began. (This contradicts their view that the universe began with a superhot expansion, then 100,000,000 years later, stars began forming.) “It is safe to say that the existence of this quasar will be giving some theorists sleepless nights.”[SUP]10[/SUP] However, these massive objects could have formed in a very compact universe if the stretching occurred several days after the universe began, but after some gravitational clumping began.
Likewise, much of the expansion of supernova remnants over great distances may be due to the stretching, rather than the passage of millions of years.
Galaxies and Their Black Holes. The masses of massive black holes are positively correlated with the size of each of their galaxies. (The larger the galaxy, the larger its black hole.[SUP]11[/SUP]) According to the standard explanations for galaxy formation, this should not be,[SUP]12[/SUP] because black holes are so small in volume compared to galaxies. If a massive black hole formed first, it would not be able to form a large galaxy, because black holes cannot affect something as large as a galaxy. Nor would a large galaxy necessarily produce a large black hole. Instead, “the correlation means that the black hole and galaxy had to form together,”[SUP]13[/SUP] something standard astronomy is unable to explain.
But this is precisely what should happen based on the stretching explanation. Before the universe was stretched out, some regions contained more mass than other regions. The denser concentrations collapsed rapidly, forming massive black holes, but the stretching that quickly followed prevented all that concentration of mass from ending up in the black hole. Instead, a large galaxy was formed around the massive black hole. Less-dense concentrations formed less-massive black holes and the stretching that quickly followed produced a smaller galaxy.
Central Stars. About forty stars orbit within a few dozen light-hours of the black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. Those stars could never have evolved that close to a black hole, which has the mass of 4,300,000 suns, because the black hole’s gravity would have prevented gas from collapsing to become a star.[SUP]14[/SUP] However, those stars could have formed in a much denser environment,[SUP]15[/SUP] before space was stretched out during the creation week.
Some astronomers say that these stars evolved far from the black hole and then migrated great distances toward the black hole. Such a migration, which seemingly violates the laws of physics,[SUP]16[/SUP] must have been fast because the stars are so massive that their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms. Also, matter (or stars) migrating toward black holes must radiate vast amounts of energy as happens with quasars, but that energy is not observed in any wavelength for these central stars.
Spiral Galaxies. If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, their arms should be wrapped more tightly around their centers than they are. Also, nearer galaxies should show much more “wrap” than more distant spiral galaxies. [See Figure 203 on page 397.] However, if space was recently stretched out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do.
Dwarf Galaxies. Dwarf galaxies are sometimes embedded in a smoothly rotating disk of hydrogen gas that is much larger than the galaxy itself. The mass (hidden or otherwise) of each dwarf galaxy is insufficient to pull the gas into its disk shape,[SUP]17[/SUP] but if this matter was once highly concentrated and then the space it occupied was recently stretched out, all observed characteristics would be explained.
Figure 204: Dwarf Galaxy. An enormous hydrogen disk (blue) surrounds the dwarf galaxy UGC 5288 (bright white). This isolated galaxy, 16 million light-years from Earth, contains about 100,000 stars and is 1/25 the diameter of our Milky Way Galaxy, which has at least 100,000,000,000 stars. The dwarf’s mass is about 30 times too small to gravitationally hold onto the most distant hydrogen gas, so gravity could not have pulled the distant hydrogen gas into its disk. Because the gas is too evenly distributed and rotates so smoothly, it was not expelled from the galaxy or pulled out by a close encounter with another galaxy.
Hydrogen gas would have assumed this shape if space was once more compact and later was stretched out. Before the stretching, gravitational forces would have been much more powerful, thereby producing this smooth rotational pattern. This would have occurred recently, because the gaseous disk has not dispersed into the vacuum of space. (The galaxy is seen in visible light; the hydrogen disk is seen by a fleet of 27 radio telescopes.)
Heavy Elements in Stars. According to the big bang theory, there are three generations of stars, each with increasing amounts of heavy elements. The first generation should contain only hydrogen and helium. After hundreds of millions of years, second-generation stars would begin forming with heavier elements made inside first-generation stars that later exploded. Although some first-generation stars should still be visible, not one has ever been found. [See Endnote 56n on page 90.]
According to the stretching explanation, stars have always had some heavier chemical elements. The most distant stars, galaxies, and quasars that can be analyzed contain some of these heavier chemical elements.
Stellar Velocities. Stars in the outer parts of spiral galaxies travel much faster than they should based on physical laws. However, if those stars were nearer the centers of their galaxies only thousands of years ago—before the heavens were stretched out—they would have had those higher speeds then, and would retain them after the heavens were stretched out. Appeals to so-called dark matter, which has not been directly measured or detected, would not be needed (or imagined) to explain those velocities.)
Speeding Galaxies. A similar observation can be made about tight clusters of galaxies. Galaxies in clusters are traveling much faster than they should, based on their distances from their clusters’ centers of mass.
Distant Galaxies. Massive galaxies and galaxy clusters are now found at such great distances that they must have formed soon after the universe began. The big bang theory cannot explain how such distant galaxy concentrations could have formed so quickly that their light could travel for almost 13-billion years to reach planet Earth.[SUP]18[/SUP] [See "How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is?" on pages 410-411.]
The stretching explanation says that galaxies and galaxy clusters began before the heavens were stretched out, when all matter was relatively confined. Stretching produced most of the great distances separating those galaxies from Earth.
Strings of Galaxies. Obviously, gravity would not pull matter into long strings of hundreds or thousands of galaxies—even if the universe were unbelievably old. Instead, gravity, if acting over enormous time and distances, would pull matter into more spherical globs. Yet, long, massive filaments of galaxies have been discovered.[SUP]19[/SUP]
These strings of galaxies can be understood if galaxies were formed when all matter in the universe was initially confined to a much smaller volume. (In that small space, stars and galaxies formed either by the direct acts of a Creator or by the powerful gravitational forces resulting from so much extremely confined mass.) Then, the heavens were rapidly stretched out. Just as one might pull taffy into long strings, the stretched out heavens might contain long, massive strings of thousands of galaxies. A surprising number appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars, as prominent astronomers have noted. [See "Connected Galaxies" on page 40.]
Colliding Galaxies. Some galaxies contain two distinct rotating systems, as if a galaxy rotating one way collided with another rotating the opposite way. Today, based on the vast distances between galaxies and their relatively slow speeds, such mergers should rarely happen—but many have happened.[SUP]20[/SUP]
Does this mean that the universe must be billions of years old? No. Before the heavens were stretched out, galaxies would have been closer to each other, resulting in much greater speeds and frequent collisions.
If some galaxies merged over billions of years, why haven’t the different rotations within a merged galaxy homogenized by now? Clearly, those mergings did not happen billions of years ago.[SUP]21[/SUP]
Helium-2 Nebulas. Clouds of glowing, blue gas, called helium-2 nebulas, have been set aglow by something hot enough to strip two electrons from each helium atom. No known star—young or old—is hot enough to do so,[SUP]22[/SUP] but compressed conditions before the heavens were stretched out would do this.
Dark “Science.” The big bang theory must invoke unscientific concepts, such as “dark matter” and “dark energy,” to try to explain the “stretched out heavens.” What is dark matter and dark energy? Even believers in those ideas don’t know, and some admit that those phrases are “expressions of ignorance [by those who accept the big bang theory]”.[SUP]23[/SUP] Dark matter, dark energy, and many other scientific problems with the big bang theory are discussed, beginning on page 31.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB is often given as evidence for the big bang theory. Actually, that radiation, when studied closely, is a strong argument against the big bang and evidence for the sudden creation of matter within an immense universe. [For details, see pages 407–409.]
Summary
With both the big bang and stretching explanations, it is difficult to imagine time beginning, the sudden presence of matter and energy in a small universe, space expanding, and a brief period when all the laws of physics did not operate. The big bang theory says that space expanded for a fraction of a second from a mathematical point—trillions of billions of times faster than the speed of light today. The stretching explanation says that in the days after the creation of time and all matter, a much smaller universe than we have today was rapidly stretched out, along with the matter and light in that space. Although no scientific explanation can be given for either form of expansion, the stretching interpretation best fits the observable evidence.
We also can appreciate why at least eleven Bible passages, involving five different writers, mention the “stretched out heavens.” Another verse, Psalm 19:1, takes on a new depth of meaning: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Why Does the Universe Seem to Be Expanding?
The Evidence
Accelerating Expansion. The redshift of distant starlight suggests an expansion. However, a big bang should produce only a decelerating expansion, not the accelerating expansion observed. [See "Dark Thoughts" on page 32.] Stretching, completed during the creation week, could have produced the accelerated expansion which is shown by the light that has finally reached earth from the edge of the visible universe.
Star Formation. Astronomers recognize that the densest gas cloud seen in the universe today could not form stars by any known means, including gravitational collapse, unless that gas was once thousands of times more compact. [See “Interstellar Gas” on page 93.] Apparently, stars were formed before or as the heavens were stretched out.
Intergalactic Medium (IGM). Outer space is nearly a perfect vacuum. The IGM (the vast space between galaxies) contains about 10–100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. However, almost every hydrogen atom in the IGM, out to the farthest galaxies the best telescopes can see (13 billion light-years away), has been ionized—has lost its electron.
According to the big bang theory, for the first 400,000 years after the big bang, the expanding universe was so hot that all matter was ionized. Only after the universe had expanded (and cooled) enough could protons acquire an electron and become neutral hydrogen. Then, after matter in the universe was no longer ionized, stars and galaxies, according to the theory, began evolving. Had the hydrogen remained ionized, the mutual repulsion of the positive hydrogen ions would have prevented hydrogen from coming together to form stars. (Note: other reasons why stars and galaxies could not have evolved are given on pages 31–34.)
This presents a major problem. What reionized the hydrogen that today pervades the IGM? No explanation has been found. Most big-bang theorists had guessed that the radiation from the earliest stars and galaxies—after the universe had already expanded for hundreds of millions of years—was powerful enough to reionize the IGM. This now appears to not be the case.[SUP]4[/SUP]
According to the stretching explanation, when the universe was created, it was extremely compact, so the intense light of DAY 1 and/or the light of stars and galaxies (created on DAY 4) ionized the surrounding gases. Then, the heavens were stretched out. Therefore, hydrogen in the IGM has always been ionized, just as we see it today.
Black Holes. Black holes come in two varieties: massive black holes (MBHs) and stellar black holes (SBHs). MBHs are millions to a few billion times more massive that the sun. They lie at the center of every large nearby galaxy—and perhaps every galaxy. SBHs have masses that are only a few tens times greater than the sun; probably millions of SBHs are scattered throughout our Milky Way Galaxy.[SUP]5[/SUP] In both types of black holes, mass is so concentrated that nothing within a specific distance from a black hole (called the event horizon) should escape their gravity—not even light.
Astronomers admit that galaxies and black holes must have existed very soon after the universe began,[SUP]6[/SUP] but the big bang theory says that 300,000 years after the big bang (before stars formed) all matter was spread out uniformly. That uniformity would prevent gravity from forming galaxies and black holes, even over the supposed age of the universe.[SUP]7[/SUP] However, they could easily have formed or existed soon after the creation of matter and the universe, if the universe was much more compact[SUP]8[/SUP] and the heavens were stretched out before a complete collapse into one huge black hole.
Even though nothing should escape black holes, some are expelling powerful jets at “up to 99.98 percent of the speed of light. These amazing outflows traverse distances larger than galaxies.”[SUP]9[/SUP] Stars sometimes expel jets, so this paradox could be resolved if space was stretched out after stellar jets and black holes began forming.
Quasars. Quasars are the most luminous stable objects in the universe. Most black holes have already pulled in almost all the dust within their vicinity. However, some black holes are at such extreme distances from us (and therefore seen as they were far back in time) that they are seen still pulling in large amounts of nearby matter. The gravitational potential energy of all that falling matter is converted to bright radiation. The combination—a MBH with bright radiation from infalling matter—is called a quasar (quasi-stellar radio source, QUASi-stellAR). Light we are now seeing from quasars was emitted soon after time began, before most of the matter surrounding those distant MBHs was pulled into them.
One quasar has been found that has two billion times the mass of the Sun, and yet is so far from earth that big-bang theorists say it must have formed (by some unknown mechanism) very soon after the universe began. (This contradicts their view that the universe began with a superhot expansion, then 100,000,000 years later, stars began forming.) “It is safe to say that the existence of this quasar will be giving some theorists sleepless nights.”[SUP]10[/SUP] However, these massive objects could have formed in a very compact universe if the stretching occurred several days after the universe began, but after some gravitational clumping began.
Likewise, much of the expansion of supernova remnants over great distances may be due to the stretching, rather than the passage of millions of years.
Galaxies and Their Black Holes. The masses of massive black holes are positively correlated with the size of each of their galaxies. (The larger the galaxy, the larger its black hole.[SUP]11[/SUP]) According to the standard explanations for galaxy formation, this should not be,[SUP]12[/SUP] because black holes are so small in volume compared to galaxies. If a massive black hole formed first, it would not be able to form a large galaxy, because black holes cannot affect something as large as a galaxy. Nor would a large galaxy necessarily produce a large black hole. Instead, “the correlation means that the black hole and galaxy had to form together,”[SUP]13[/SUP] something standard astronomy is unable to explain.
But this is precisely what should happen based on the stretching explanation. Before the universe was stretched out, some regions contained more mass than other regions. The denser concentrations collapsed rapidly, forming massive black holes, but the stretching that quickly followed prevented all that concentration of mass from ending up in the black hole. Instead, a large galaxy was formed around the massive black hole. Less-dense concentrations formed less-massive black holes and the stretching that quickly followed produced a smaller galaxy.
Central Stars. About forty stars orbit within a few dozen light-hours of the black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. Those stars could never have evolved that close to a black hole, which has the mass of 4,300,000 suns, because the black hole’s gravity would have prevented gas from collapsing to become a star.[SUP]14[/SUP] However, those stars could have formed in a much denser environment,[SUP]15[/SUP] before space was stretched out during the creation week.
Some astronomers say that these stars evolved far from the black hole and then migrated great distances toward the black hole. Such a migration, which seemingly violates the laws of physics,[SUP]16[/SUP] must have been fast because the stars are so massive that their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms. Also, matter (or stars) migrating toward black holes must radiate vast amounts of energy as happens with quasars, but that energy is not observed in any wavelength for these central stars.
Spiral Galaxies. If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, their arms should be wrapped more tightly around their centers than they are. Also, nearer galaxies should show much more “wrap” than more distant spiral galaxies. [See Figure 203 on page 397.] However, if space was recently stretched out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do.
Dwarf Galaxies. Dwarf galaxies are sometimes embedded in a smoothly rotating disk of hydrogen gas that is much larger than the galaxy itself. The mass (hidden or otherwise) of each dwarf galaxy is insufficient to pull the gas into its disk shape,[SUP]17[/SUP] but if this matter was once highly concentrated and then the space it occupied was recently stretched out, all observed characteristics would be explained.
Figure 204: Dwarf Galaxy. An enormous hydrogen disk (blue) surrounds the dwarf galaxy UGC 5288 (bright white). This isolated galaxy, 16 million light-years from Earth, contains about 100,000 stars and is 1/25 the diameter of our Milky Way Galaxy, which has at least 100,000,000,000 stars. The dwarf’s mass is about 30 times too small to gravitationally hold onto the most distant hydrogen gas, so gravity could not have pulled the distant hydrogen gas into its disk. Because the gas is too evenly distributed and rotates so smoothly, it was not expelled from the galaxy or pulled out by a close encounter with another galaxy.
Hydrogen gas would have assumed this shape if space was once more compact and later was stretched out. Before the stretching, gravitational forces would have been much more powerful, thereby producing this smooth rotational pattern. This would have occurred recently, because the gaseous disk has not dispersed into the vacuum of space. (The galaxy is seen in visible light; the hydrogen disk is seen by a fleet of 27 radio telescopes.)
Heavy Elements in Stars. According to the big bang theory, there are three generations of stars, each with increasing amounts of heavy elements. The first generation should contain only hydrogen and helium. After hundreds of millions of years, second-generation stars would begin forming with heavier elements made inside first-generation stars that later exploded. Although some first-generation stars should still be visible, not one has ever been found. [See Endnote 56n on page 90.]
According to the stretching explanation, stars have always had some heavier chemical elements. The most distant stars, galaxies, and quasars that can be analyzed contain some of these heavier chemical elements.
Stellar Velocities. Stars in the outer parts of spiral galaxies travel much faster than they should based on physical laws. However, if those stars were nearer the centers of their galaxies only thousands of years ago—before the heavens were stretched out—they would have had those higher speeds then, and would retain them after the heavens were stretched out. Appeals to so-called dark matter, which has not been directly measured or detected, would not be needed (or imagined) to explain those velocities.)
Speeding Galaxies. A similar observation can be made about tight clusters of galaxies. Galaxies in clusters are traveling much faster than they should, based on their distances from their clusters’ centers of mass.
Distant Galaxies. Massive galaxies and galaxy clusters are now found at such great distances that they must have formed soon after the universe began. The big bang theory cannot explain how such distant galaxy concentrations could have formed so quickly that their light could travel for almost 13-billion years to reach planet Earth.[SUP]18[/SUP] [See "How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is?" on pages 410-411.]
The stretching explanation says that galaxies and galaxy clusters began before the heavens were stretched out, when all matter was relatively confined. Stretching produced most of the great distances separating those galaxies from Earth.
Strings of Galaxies. Obviously, gravity would not pull matter into long strings of hundreds or thousands of galaxies—even if the universe were unbelievably old. Instead, gravity, if acting over enormous time and distances, would pull matter into more spherical globs. Yet, long, massive filaments of galaxies have been discovered.[SUP]19[/SUP]
These strings of galaxies can be understood if galaxies were formed when all matter in the universe was initially confined to a much smaller volume. (In that small space, stars and galaxies formed either by the direct acts of a Creator or by the powerful gravitational forces resulting from so much extremely confined mass.) Then, the heavens were rapidly stretched out. Just as one might pull taffy into long strings, the stretched out heavens might contain long, massive strings of thousands of galaxies. A surprising number appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars, as prominent astronomers have noted. [See "Connected Galaxies" on page 40.]
Colliding Galaxies. Some galaxies contain two distinct rotating systems, as if a galaxy rotating one way collided with another rotating the opposite way. Today, based on the vast distances between galaxies and their relatively slow speeds, such mergers should rarely happen—but many have happened.[SUP]20[/SUP]
Does this mean that the universe must be billions of years old? No. Before the heavens were stretched out, galaxies would have been closer to each other, resulting in much greater speeds and frequent collisions.
If some galaxies merged over billions of years, why haven’t the different rotations within a merged galaxy homogenized by now? Clearly, those mergings did not happen billions of years ago.[SUP]21[/SUP]
Helium-2 Nebulas. Clouds of glowing, blue gas, called helium-2 nebulas, have been set aglow by something hot enough to strip two electrons from each helium atom. No known star—young or old—is hot enough to do so,[SUP]22[/SUP] but compressed conditions before the heavens were stretched out would do this.
Dark “Science.” The big bang theory must invoke unscientific concepts, such as “dark matter” and “dark energy,” to try to explain the “stretched out heavens.” What is dark matter and dark energy? Even believers in those ideas don’t know, and some admit that those phrases are “expressions of ignorance [by those who accept the big bang theory]”.[SUP]23[/SUP] Dark matter, dark energy, and many other scientific problems with the big bang theory are discussed, beginning on page 31.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB is often given as evidence for the big bang theory. Actually, that radiation, when studied closely, is a strong argument against the big bang and evidence for the sudden creation of matter within an immense universe. [For details, see pages 407–409.]
Summary
With both the big bang and stretching explanations, it is difficult to imagine time beginning, the sudden presence of matter and energy in a small universe, space expanding, and a brief period when all the laws of physics did not operate. The big bang theory says that space expanded for a fraction of a second from a mathematical point—trillions of billions of times faster than the speed of light today. The stretching explanation says that in the days after the creation of time and all matter, a much smaller universe than we have today was rapidly stretched out, along with the matter and light in that space. Although no scientific explanation can be given for either form of expansion, the stretching interpretation best fits the observable evidence.
We also can appreciate why at least eleven Bible passages, involving five different writers, mention the “stretched out heavens.” Another verse, Psalm 19:1, takes on a new depth of meaning: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Why Does the Universe Seem to Be Expanding?
Last edited:
D
So Pahu,
What you are saying is that, in post 1213, God set up the universe to be uniform and that the laws of the universe are uniform both in the past and in the present - and creation is the only way this could have happened. Then in post 1216 and 1217 you state that God stretched out the heavens and had the stars move at approx 2.2 million times the speed of light to allow for the distant starlight problem, thus contradicting your first post. Which is it?
What you are saying is that, in post 1213, God set up the universe to be uniform and that the laws of the universe are uniform both in the past and in the present - and creation is the only way this could have happened. Then in post 1216 and 1217 you state that God stretched out the heavens and had the stars move at approx 2.2 million times the speed of light to allow for the distant starlight problem, thus contradicting your first post. Which is it?
Where is the contradiction? It is true that God created the universe and everything in it with all the laws of physics, etc., which are uniform. That does not mean uniformitarianism is valid. Since 1830, it has been summarized by the phrase, “The present is the key to the past.” In other words, only processes observable today and acting at present rates can be used to explain past events. Because some catastrophes, such as large impacts from outer space, are now fashionable, many now recognize uniformitarianism as a poor, arbitrary assumption—a stifling requirement (In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Final Thoughts).
You asked me to "explain the distant starlight problem." My answer was that God may have stretched out the universe and I presented a lot of evidence why that is valid. I do not recall saying anything about the stars moving at approx 2.2 million times the speed of light to allow for the distant starlight problem. I see no contradiction.
You asked me to "explain the distant starlight problem." My answer was that God may have stretched out the universe and I presented a lot of evidence why that is valid. I do not recall saying anything about the stars moving at approx 2.2 million times the speed of light to allow for the distant starlight problem. I see no contradiction.