The lie of evolution

" just posted a link for a site about Dark Matter. It was not a creationist site at all."

But your link did not support your assertion, so why address the link?

The link merely pointed out the same thing that I told you. You did not listen to your source and you did not listen to me.

Dark matter is knwon to exist because of its gravitational effects. There are candidates for what dark matter might be. The leading candidates are the supersymettric particles. We have yet to build a particle accelerator large enough to make particles of the expected masses of the supersymettric particles. So there is a very good reason why they have not been detected directly. They are currently beyond our technology. However, a collider under construction now will be right at the borderline in energy where it may have just enough power to make these particles. If it crosses that threshold, problem solved. If not, we build a bigger collider. If that one does not make them, then we have to go back and talk about whether they really exist. But right now, the best evidence from gravitational lensing, from galaxy rotational speeds and from the CMB is that it does exist and that it is about 5 times more common than regular matter.

Here is a story about a whole dark matter galaxy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4288633.stm

"It has NEVER been observed or measured by anyone. It is simply the only explanation astronmers and scientists can come up with to explain certain gravitational effects."

You contradict yourself there. If there are gravitational effects, these are observations. To claim that there are no observations, you would have to find alternate explanations for all of the gravitational effects. (Which, BTW, is entirely possible. SOme people are working on theories where gravity acts different at a distance to explain the effects without dark matter. There are also other ideas. But none of them are very popular.)

"In other words, it is an imaginary device to support the Big Bang theory. Without this Dark Matter there could be no Big Bang."

The observations are quite real. It is only secondary that these observations support the prediction from inflation that the universe should appear to be flat. The mass provided by dark matter and dark energy provide what is needed to give us a flat universe. It is more than just coincidence that inflation predicts a flat universe and that observations confirm that the mass is just what would be expected if it is flat. It shows that inflation is a good theory that makes testible predictions that are then confirmed.

"But at the same time you are naive enough to believe this puncuated equilibrium THEORY."

You have not given us a reason to reject punk eek. You have not even mentioned it in a way that shows that you understand what it claims in order to make an argument against it. YOu still seem to think that it means that there are no transitional fossils.

Have you looked, yet, at the links I gave you discussing the the radiometric link you gave us?

Do you yet have a reason to explain the observations we have about whales? How do we test your explanation to see if it or common descent fits the facts better?

Do you yet have a quote from a "prominent" evolutionist claiming that there "are no transitional fossils" along with a link where we can read the whole claim in context showing that the author's intent is accurately conveyed by the quote?

 

A good scientist would base his report on observation only and not preconceived solutions.

The above sentence would then be: Dark matter is "thought" to exist because of anomalies in gravitational effect observations.

This is n excellent example of someone jumping to a conclusion without observation. For all we know, the gravitational effects may be supernatural, based on God's will to test our faith.

Another false statement you made is that just because animals are similar, they MUST come from a common ancestor. Again, no observation, only hypothesis (not even theory).

Has anybody ever thought that when God made animals, certain bodily functions, organs and structure worked so well that He used the same "design" in many of His creations? When an electronic engineer designs a new device--for instance a new radio receiver for a customer, he does not reinvent the receiver each time--he uses circuits that are well proven; but there is obviously no way that these receivers have a common ancestor. But, they DO have a common "intelligent designer".

 

A good scientist would base his report on observation only and not preconceived solutions.

The above sentence would then be: Dark matter is "thought" to exist because of anomalies in gravitational effect observations.
</font>[/QUOTE]LOL Our protagonist says a scientist should base his report on observations and then points out they base it on . . . observations.

Folks, let us not get confused by the mere words "dark matter". Its not as if anybody in the world of science actually has an idea as to what "dark matter" REALLY IS. Indeed, they are constantly complaining about the fact they don't know what it is.

So please, please don't accuse scientists of claiming they know something they don't know.

Something affects the orbits of galaxy parts above and beyond what we can see. Something affects the paths of light going past galaxies above and beyond the stars and dust we can see in the galaxies, making "galactic lensing" stronger than it would be otherwise.

So whatever it is, we gave it a name, "dark matter".

That's all we know about it. Really. But we DO know THAT MUCH about it.

 

Knowing that much about it, one ponders. Our sun formed by gravitational attraction and then as it heated up, it shed heat by radiation and was able to contract again to a smaller shape - which made it hotter again - but a key part of that shrinking* is the ability to shed the heat that was formed by squeezing the gases together. By giving off light and heat.

Dark matter, presumably, can't do that. Being inherently dark - having no access to dumping energy by means of electromagnetic radiation - It would therefore inherently resist clumping. It would inherently resist cooling off. It would stay hot and diffuse.

Just a thought.

*The sun is not shrinking today, I am speaking of the days of the formation of the sun. Today the sun's loss of heat is replaced by heat generated by nuclear fusion and that keeps the sun from shrinking. Someday, after the sun goes through several inevitable changes including swelling up to a red giant that eats up the earth, it will resume shrinking again after it has no more nuclear fuel.

 

Ha Paul of Eugene

I'm just jumping in here and this is only a question .

I have been taught that the sun is being burned at the rate of like 5 feet per day or something like that.

You said in your last post that the sun is not shrinking?

Could you please explain?

 

Phillip, do you apply that reasoning consistently? How do you know that gravity itself isn't supernatural in the same way, based on God's will to test our faith? For that matter, how can anything in science not be subject to the same reasoning? Are you willing to ignore all scientific explanations merely because we can never rule out that God is trying to trick us?

So, for instance, hind legs work so well that God gave the whales (well, the occasional whale) hind legs too? Never mind that sometimes they're entirely encased in blubber. I'm sure they come in very handy for the whale. So handy, in fact, that I'm sure those sharks are jealous that none of them ever get hind legs. Why do you think whales sometimes do but sharks don't? Your explanation so far comes nowhere near explaining the actual evidence.

Before you jump to the conclusion that people are jumping to conclusions and falsely accuse others of making false statements, you should probably read a bit of what's actually been said. Ute summarized the whale evidence at the end of [this post] a few pages back. If you read it, you'll see that the argument, and the evidence it is based on, is far more complex than the straw man you knocked down.

 

For what it is worth, here is part of the Wikipedia entry on the sun.

 

Urgh. See, this is one reason that I cannot accept YE creation. I don't think God is up there fibbing to us for his own amusement.

I agree with Mercury. If we're going to be skeptical of the natural record in one instance, we should be skeptical in all. This renders the process of scientific inquiry completely useless, because we have no way of knowing whether a process as simple as cause and effect, for instance, is really as it appears. Maybe there's no basis in natural law for cause and effect, and God just intervenes every time an effect is needed. In this case, we can know nothing about the natural world, because it is all based upon an arbitrary God who may have things run one day one way and another the next.

As I have said before, this is one of my key complaints about young earth creationism--if God made things look one way and their true history was different, then we can gain no useful knowledge from scientific pursuit. Of course I think God gave me my scientific bent because it is in some way characteristic of him, and that he enjoys it when his creations devote time to learning about creation. Why then would he play with our minds like this?

When I was a child and scared of monsters, my mother told me that monsters did not exist because God was a God of order and would not create things that preyed upon children, only existed in darkness and would not attack you if you had the sheets over your head. I guess this was really quite a revolutionary idea.

Regarding dark matter and Rydberg matter--if anyone had bothered to read the abstract to the article I posted, you would see that this scientist actually has generated Rydberg matter in the lab and tested it. The red-shifts he observed in the lab are consistent with the red-shifts observed intergalactically. Moreover, there is spectroscopal evidence that Rydberg matter does occur in space. To anyone but a young-earther it would not seem unnatural to conclude that Rydberg matter is likely responsible for these quantized red-shifts. It is a reasonable explanation, and holding on to the "earth is center of the universe because of quantized red-shifts" idea and dismissing this explanation outright is a choice based purely upon ideology.

 

UTEOTW said,

"You contradict yourself there. If there are gravitational effects, these are observations."

So what if gravitational effects are observed? This does not prove the Dark Matter exists. This is where you go wrong in your thinking. It is entirely possible that some other cause is causing these observed gravitational effects.

It is ok to theorize what might be causing these effects. But that is all it is without testable evidence, A THEORY.

Astronomers have been looking for Dark Matter for years and have not found it. Just because someone can create a type of dark matter in the lab does not mean it is present in space.

This is the big problem with science today. A person will come up with a theory. If it is popular, the next day it is taught as scientific fact.

Then everybody goes out and looks for evidence to support the new popular theory. Evidence that contradicts this theory is ignored or explained away.

It is sort of a Political Correctness applied to science. Anyone who disagrees with the new popular theory is scorned and ridiculed.

You call that science? A college professor would probably be afraid to present real evidence that shows the Big Bang or Evolution wrong. He or she would almost certainly lose their position.

This is the sad state of science today.

No one has ever proved the Big Bang. It has tremendous problems. Yet, it is taught in schools and universities every day as fact. Same with evolution.

And people are influenced by these unproven theories. Young children are led to believe that the Universe and life itself came into being through natural means without the need for a creator or intelligent force behind it.

And though you try to combine Creationism and Evolution, most evolutionists do not. They teach there is not a God, or even intelligence behind life and the Universe. It is all random chance.

All this based on unsupported theories.

All this is designed to lead people away from God. And it works well.

I don't care if you list 10 pages of evolutionists that support punk eek as you call it. It has no real scientific evidence. The very theory itself proves there is no evidence. It is a fantastic theory that says transitional fossils cannot be found because evolution speeds up incredibly for very short periods of time. But fossils with big differences and only slight similarites can be found because evolution slows down for long periods leaving fossils.

Give me a break. What a scam theory.

But of course, taught to students everyday.

Like you.

 

JWI, just a couple of notes here from a fellow creationist:

1. Gravity is a real force. It is referred to as a weak force, but it nevertheless is something natural that can be counted on to operate steadily. It is so steady, in fact, that God told us to measure time by it in Genesis 1:14. That is what is behind using the sun, moon, and stars as timekeepers.

2. The reason, and the only reason, long-agers insist on dark matter is because they need it to support the long age ideas. It is totally unneeded in a recent creation.

3. In the Bible, God says 12 times that He stretched out the heavens. So there was a 'big expansion', which is actually what the Big Bang was until it picked up that derogatory name for being too close to what the Bible was talking about! The difference between what God and the data indicate and what 'science' is saying is that while current science insists the universe is still expanding, the Bible lists the stretching as always in the past completed tense and the data also indicates it is not currently expanding (although we are picking up a slight oscillation effect).

4. You are right that punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) has no evidence. It is a theory started by Gould and Eldridge and born out of desperation and lack of fossil evidence for evolution.

 

While the Bible remains the same,new theories,explanations,rationalizations and just plain silliness comes out to support a theory(evolution) as if it were fact.when are we going to catch on?

 

Helen

Thank you. Yes, I have read that Bible verse. I have no problem believeing that God stretched out the universe just as He said.

And while I am no scholar, I have been interested in astronomy for over 40 years and have done much reading. I believe the universe is static as you say. Now, I will freely admit, the reason I believe the universe is static is 2 Peter 3:7

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This verse says not only the earth, but heavens as well are kept in store by God's word. Perhaps this verse means something different, but this is what it seems to say to me. And since Noah's time we have seen the four seasons, the earth is relatively the same year after year, with only minor variation. So, the heavens are also being kept in this fashion. Just my opinion.

Plain Old Bill

Lots of folks do catch on. Any person with common sense can see this puctuated equilibrium is a contrived theory, born out of desperation as Helen said. They have no REAL proof whatsoever, so they invent a totally fantastic theory to try to explain the real evidence.

But, we don't have PhD's from some big university. So our opinion doesn't count. We are way too simple to understand science.

Evolutionists do not like to talk about the Cambrian Explosion. This is when many thousands of complicated life forms suddenly appeared, many exactly the same as they appear today. This supports creationism, but is a huge problem for evolution. There are no transitional forms whatsoever.

And this is the point about Dark Matter. Perhaps it exists, I can't say. But gravitational effects do not prove it exists. No, you have to prove Dark Matter exists. And creating it in the lab proves nothing. I can make a yoyo in my workshop with a few pieces of wood and string. Doesn't mean space is full of yoyos.

That is not as silly as it sounded.

This explanation that we do not presently have technology to detect Dark Matter is also contrived. You could claim anything exists if you do not have to provide real evidence.

Dark Matter is something that was invented to provide mathematical solutions to serious problems with the Big Bang.

There is an old saying,

"Figures never lie. But liars figure."

There is another old saying that fits evolution perfectly.

"All hat, but no ranch"

 

Right on JWI

 

Thank you for your interest in our discussion. Please continue to visit.

The Sun is presently one of many stars that are in the "main sequence". Stars in this state are in a balanced mode, wherein should they grow smaller, the heat within the star would increase (as it does when any gas is compressed) which would speed up the nuclear fusion reactions at the core and the star would then be forced to expand and cool a bit. Should they grow larger, the cooling caused by the expansion would slow down the rate of nuclear reaction and the heat production would go down, and the star would shrink a bit. So it maintains a balance. But there is another factor - as the nuclear fuel is used up, the conditions for nuclear reaction are such that the nuclear reaction speeds up. This causes the balance point to change and the star swells somewhat, getting somewhat hotter over time. This goes on until hydrogen is no longer available for nuclear fusion in the core and then we have other intersting developments. But you can check that out here:

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/physics/ph7/StevI.html

This is NOT NEW STUFF - they've been describing the ultimate fate of the sun along this line ever since they invented the Atom Bomb.

 

You know, I find this line of thought plain disgusting.

Let's see, what other things have been proposed by scientists to exist and were then discovered?

1. Neptune

2. Neutron stars

3. Neutrinos

4. Brown dwarfs

5. Quarks

6. A variety of elements

7. Antimatter

8. Extrasolar planets

9. Neurotransmitters

10. Xenon-flurine compounds

I'll stop at ten because it's a nice, round number. I could go on--that's the nice thing about science, it makes predictions and tests them, and often the hypotheses are confirmed.

I hope you aren't too distraught when dark matter is discovered ten years or so from now, assuming you don't just deny the validity of the discovery. That is essentially what you have done with intragalactic Rydberg matter. It has been made in the lab and has properties consistent with spectroscopal observation, yet you stick your head in the sand and try to claim that just because we A) proved it's possible to make Rydberg matter and just because it B) explains quantized red shifts, Faraday rotation, unidentified infrared bands (UIBs) and diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) doesn't mean it could possibly exist in space. Basically you can explain away any evidence as insufficient because you plain don't like the conclusion.

 

Rydberg matter is ordinary atoms that have their electrons circling them further out from the nucleous than normal. It would normally not be observed on earth because the electrons, being so weakly associated with the nucleous, would just get knocked off completely. Out in space, however, where jostling your neighboring atom isn't such a common occurance, they could last a long time. I'm looking forward to learning more about how they are said to explain quantization of the redshifts of the light from galaxies . . . that does not seem immediately reasonable to me, but then, neither did Einstein's Theory of Relativity! And we all know how well that theory works to explain things we could never otherwise explain.

 

In addition to what others have said, I just wanted to add that rates similar to what you mentioned were proposed before anyone knew about nuclear fusion. It was that discovery that led to the realization that the sun would not burn up its fuel so quickly, and so the earlier estimates were wrong.

By the way, this discovery was made during the late 1930s, so if you have read material that is still promoting these pre-fusion burn rates, it is either extremely out of date or purposely misleading.

 

Another well-known example is helium (in addition to the other elements you mentioned). It's yet another great example of the predictive abilities of science:

From [Norman-Lockyer web page]
See also [Wikipedia]

 

Petrel, Mercury, Paul -- you folks are trying to create, or at least continue, a supposed war between science and the Bible. There is no war. No one is arguing what scientists have discovered.

What is being argued is a field of pseudo-science called evolution, which takes data and puts a spin on it and then uses it to try to weaken or discard God's Word.

Evolution is not science. It is a belief system. It is a belief system which directly contradicts the Bible. It survives by declaring its interpretation of data is the only possible one, despite the fact that the data may be trending in exactly the opposite direction and despite the fact that other, valid interpretations of the same data exist.

 

Helen, I encourage you to read the last few pages of the thread to see what prompted the posts defending the ability of science to describe what naturally exists. It was others who were trying to create a war between science and the Bible. Many of us (perhaps including you) believe that such a war only shows a misunderstanding of both science and the Bible.