KJV

United States

#3614 May 4, 2013

Evidence for a Global Flood

by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

Email: laurence@unmaskingevolution.co m

Webpage: www.unmaskingevolution.com

[Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]

In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These details have demolished the main argument against a global flood, but the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.



Here are over 100 evidences in support of a global flood, rather than a local one.

FROM LOGIC.........[12 reasons]

(1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized area is currently close to impossible.

(2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a cataclysmic event.

(3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a local flood.

(4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have been local.

(5) To cover the mountains continually for 9 months, the flood could not have been local.

(6) The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human beings. This could only refer to a worldwide flood.

(7) If the flood was local, people living elsewhere in the world would have escaped.

(8) The enormous size of the ark (equivalent to the capacity of 500 railroad freight carriages) would hold much more than local species of animals.

(9) The purpose of the ark to "keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon the face of the earth" is only rational if the flood was global.

(10) Noah and his family could have migrated to a locality away from the local area to be flooded. There would have been no need to spend 120 years building an ark.

(11) Many of the animals in the flooding area could have easily migrated to escape the deluge if the flood was local. There would have been no need to build an ark to provide them with a safe haven.

(12) If God made a promise based on a lie (ie. that the flood being local rather than global), then he can't be trusted to save us from our sins.

http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm

Continued......

FROM SCIENCE.......[45 reasons]

(13) There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.

(14) According to current archaeological evidence, civilization appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.

(15) The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.

(16) An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood. This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.

(17) Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest geologic 'ages'(eg human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains and artefacts would appear to be in such positions.

(18) The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond reach by a huge flood.

(19) Calculations have shown that there is nearly the same amount of organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if all the fossils were still alive (Morris p:685). This indicates the demise of all living things in a single global event.
KJV

United States

#3615 May 4, 2013
(20) Palaeontological evidence indicates that the early earth had a warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis.

(21) The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid climatic change.

(22) Similar geologic formations exist in rocks of all ages (eg rifts, folds, faults, thrusts, etc.). These can just as easily be explained as being created in the same cataclysmic global event.

(23) Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have required a catastrophic global flood.

(24) Rocks of different geologic 'ages' have similar physical features indicating that they could have been created by a single worldwide event - such as a global flood.

(25) There is an absence of physical evidence that indicates a time change between rocks of 'successive ages'. Sedimentary rock layers worldwide appear to have been laid down very quickly, as by a global flood.

(26) Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment. Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits wouldn't.

(27) All types of rocks (eg limestone, shale, granite, etc) occur in all geologic 'ages'. This indicates a common formation on a global scale - the situation that would have been created by the mixing of sediment in a global flood.

(28) Many geological processes have a recent geological date. If the long-age evolutionary time scale is ignored, these processes would have occurred in the very recent past - ie. as a result of the flood cataclysm.

(29) Recent volcanic rocks are distributed widely.(see last point above)

(30) The uplift of the major mountain ranges are relatively young, based on evolutionary chronology. If the long-age evolutionary time scale is ignored, these processes would have occurred in the very recent past - ie as a result of the flood cataclysm.

http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm

Continued..........

(31) There is a lack of correlation between radiometric 'ages' and assumed palaeontological 'ages'(Morris p:686). A global flood could easily create an illusion of geologic 'ages'. The consequent conflict between dating methods confirms the illusion.

(32) Fossil 'graveyards' are found worldwide, and in rocks of all 'ages'. Only a catastrophic global flood could achieve this.

(33) The burial of fossil deposits worldwide had to have occurred in a catastrophic event. Only massive flooding could bury in such a fashion.
KJV

United States

#3616 May 4, 2013
(34) Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains. Apart from mountain uplifting, this can also be explained as the marine animals being washed there and then buried. A global flood could do this.

(35) There is a worldwide distribution of most of the fossil types, indicating transportation on a global scale by a global flood.

(36) Fossils from different 'ages' are often found mixed. This indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a local flood.

(37) Worldwide, fossils from different 'ages' are often found in the wrong order. This indicates a global mixing of fossils as a consequence of a global flood.

(38) Supposed evolutionary fossil sequences often parallel the ecological zonation that occurs today (Morris p:686). If a global flood mixed organisms from different areas, it would create the illusion of a fossil sequence over time.

(39) Dinosaurs and many other prehistoric creatures died out suddenly. A catastrophe such as a global flood could have produced this result.

(40) Polystrate fossils (viz. vertical fossil tree trunks) that are found worldwide indicate turbulent or rapid deposition. A global flood would be required to do this worldwide.

(41) Polystrate fossils also form when water-logged timber sinks in a large body of water. A year long global flood could produce worldwide polystrate fossils formed in this way.

(42) Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this preservation worldwide - ie. by a global flood.

(43) Meteorites are basically absent from the geologic column. With the large number of meteorites hitting the earth each year, they should be very plentiful throughout the sedimentary rocks - unless much of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down in one year.

(44) Sedimentary rocks contain fossil ripple-marks and raindrop imprints, but no hail imprints. A global flood (with associated rain), that was not caused by storms would not leave hail imprint marks.

(45) Some desert areas show evidence of 'recent' water bodies. Water from a recent global flood would remain in large pools (bodies of water) for some time before evaporating.

(46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A global flood could easily have created this feature.

(47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.

(48) Mountain-high water level marks found throughout the world are consistent with the recession of a global flood.

(49) River terraces are found worldwide.(Morris p:685)

(50) There is a universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present stream. Slow erosion over millions of years could not have created these valleys as the mountains would have eroded, keeping pace with the valley erosion. The drainage of global floodwaters from the land surface could easily create such wide valleys in a short period of time.

(51) Only modern sediments show any evidence of surface drainage systems. If the majority of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down by a global flood there would not be any sign of drainage erosion except for the top layers eroded during the recession of the flood waters off the land.

(52) Hydrologic evidence points to the rapid deposition of sedimentary rock layers. Therefore, the thousand's of metres of sediment must have been deposited by a catastrophic global flood.

(53) Hydrologic evidence points to the world's sedimentary rocks being deposited in one continuous episode. All the layers could have been laid down by a single event, such as a global flood.
KJV

United States

#3617 May 4, 2013
(54) Hydrologic experiments show that flowing sediment automatically settles out in distinct layers. Therefore, sedimentary rock layers can be just as easily explained as flood debris, as slow deposition.

(55) There is a worldwide occurrence of deep alluvial deposits and sedimentary rocks consistent with a huge global flood.

(56) There is a near-random deposition of formational sequences.(Morris p:685)

(57) Nowhere in the world is it possible to see the complete geologic column as a single structure. It is always found in bits and pieces, and mostly with pieces missing. Globally, a worldwide flood could create the illusion of a geologic column.

(58) The oldest organisms still alive on Earth today, the Californian Redwoods, Sequoias and Bristlecone Pines, are around 3,000-4,000 years old. Nothing is older that the date of Noah's flood.

http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm

Continued..........

FROM THE GENESIS NARRATIVE........[47 reasons]

(59) The account in Genesis speaks of the flood being a universal event at least thirty times.

(60) God promised three times not to "smite [destroy - NKJ] every living thing" by a flood (Gen8:21; 9:11; 9:15). Three occurrences in Scripture indicates absolute truth.

(61) Following the flood, Eden was no longer discussed geographically. If it was a local flood, its general whereabouts would still be known. The total obliteration of the whole earth's geography is therefore inferred - such as by a global flood.

(62) The "waters above the firmament [earth - NKJ]" would not have been localised into a small area.(Gen 1:7)

(63) No rain on the earth before the flood speaks of a worldwide condition.(Gen 2:5)

(64) The whole earth was watered by a mist, prior to the flood.(Gen 2:6)

(65) The dawn of civilization had a high civilization (Genesis chapter 4). This was wiped out and did not recover for a long time.

(66) The long life spans of the pre-diluvial people indicates an entirely different biosphere.(Gen 5:5; 5:8; 5:11; etc)

(67) The subsequent decline in life span following the flood indicates a radically different biosphere.(Gen 23:1; 25:7)

(68) God described the pre-flood people as universally evil (Gen 6:5). He never described the post-flood people as universally evil, so something universal (ie. worldwide) must have happened to weed it out.

(69) Mankind had multiplied all over the earth (Gen 6:1), so the flood had to be global to destroy them all.

(70) God was sorry that he created all living creatures, not just a localised population of animal creatures.(Gen 6:6-7)

(71) The whole earth was seen by God as corrupt.(Gen 6:11-12)

(72) God decided to destroy the whole earth.(Gen 6:13)

(73) Everything that had breath was to die.(Gen 6:17)
KJV

United States

#3618 May 4, 2013
(74) The purpose of the ark was to keep two of every breathing animal (ie. worldwide species) alive.(Gen 6:19)

(75) Two of every kind of animal and bird came to Noah, not just local fauna.(Gen 6:20)

(76) Noah had to collect samples of all food eaten, not just local foodstuffs.(Gen 6:21)

(77) God wanted the ark "to keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon the face of the earth".(Gen 7:3)

(78) God promised to destroy every living thing on the earth.(Gen 7:4)

(79) The Hebrew word for flood "mabbul" only refers to Noah's flood, so it must have been different to all other floods.(Gen 7:10)

(80) All the "fountains of the great deep" broke up in one incident.(Gen 7:11)

(81) The "fountains of the great deep" would not have affected a simple, local land-based flood.(Gen 7:11)

(82) The opening of the windows of heaven (if this refers to "the waters above the firmament") would had a global impact.(Gen 7:11)

(83) The double superlative, "all the high mountains under all the heavens" ["all the high hills under the whole heaven" - NKJ], indicates a global covering.(Gen 7:19)

(84) The highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits (6.75m) of water.(Gen 7:20)

(85) The Hebrew word, "kasah", used to mean that the mountains were covered has a meaning of "overwhelming".(Gen 7:20)

(86) Every human died on the whole earth.(Gen 7:21)

(87) All living things on dry land, with "nephesh" life in them, died.(Gen 7:22)

(88) Every living thing on the earth was destroyed.(Gen 7:23)

(89) The floodwater remained at maximum height for 5 months.(Gen 7:24)

(90) The "fountains of the deep" were open for 5 months.(Gen 8:2)

http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm

Continued........

(91) The "windows of heaven" were open for 5 months.(Gen 8:2)

(92) The floodwaters took 5 months to drain off the land.(Gen 8:3)

(93) The ark floated above the mountains for 5 months.(Gen 8:4)

(94) The waters receded for 2.5 months before the mountain tops were visible.(Gen 8:5)

(95) The dove couldn't find solid ground until the water had receded for 4 months.(Gen 8:9)

(96) Plants did not grow for 9 months.(Gen 8:11)

(97) Noah, his family, and the animals were in the ark for over a year.(Gen 8:14)

(98) All current life came out of the ark.(Gen 8:19)

(99) God promised that he would not destroy all living things again in the same way.(Gen 8:21)

(100) The current seasonal conditions date from the end of the flood (Gen 8:22), indicating a radical change from the previous environment.

(101) God commanded Noah and his family to breed and fill the earth with people again.(Gen 9:1)

(102) A flood will not be used by God to destroy the earth again.(Gen 9:11)

(103) The earth was re-populated from Noah's family.(Gen 9:19)

(104) Everyone spoke the same language after the flood (Gen 11:1), indicating decent from a single ancestor.

(105) Everyone lived in the same area after the flood.(Gen 11:9)



FROM ELSEWHERE IN SCRIPTURE......[9 reasons]

(106) The floodwaters overturned the earth.(Job 12:15)

(107) The floodwaters covered the whole earth.(Is 54:9)

(108) The flood took all people off the face of the earth.(Matt 24:39)- Jesus talking

(109) The flood destroyed all humans.(Luke 17:27)- Jesus talking

(110) The whole world was condemned.(Heb 11:7)

(111) God destroyed the old world.(II Peter 2:5)

(112) God flooded the whole world.(II Peter 2:5)

(113) The Greek word for flood, "kataklusmos", is only used to describe Noah's flood. This indicates that it was vastly different from any other flood.(II Peter 2:5)

(114) The old world perished by flood.(II Peter 3:6)



http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#3619 May 4, 2013
KJV wrote:
Evidence for a Global Flood
There was no global flood.

Well, not according to Langoliers.

"Was there a global flood?

No. The flood of Noah was a Euphrates River flood in southern Sumer similar to the flood of 1954 in southern Iraq. The "earth" in Genesis 7:17-18 refers to the ground/land in the flooded region, not the entire planet."

That's what the man posted.

Perhaps you should have words with him?

Or maybe he needs to have words with you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3620 May 4, 2013
KJV wrote:
Evidence for a Global Flood
by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
This man is a highly educated ... moron.

Seriously.

No two ways about it.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#3621 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
This man is a highly educated ... moron.
Seriously.
No two ways about it.
Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed is fraud. Other than his site there is nothing about him on the web.

I mean look at his name:-

Laurence D Smart

Laurence De Smart

Laurence the Smart

That's a joke there to start off with.

Even if he was real his credentials B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed means:-

1. B.Sc.Agr., he is a glorified farmer.
2. Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed are basically the same thing.

As for his list of 100 scientists:-
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/29-100_scie...

20 are from the 20th century all are dead, none are from the the 21st and last on the list was Dr Wernher von Braun who:-

1. was an engineer not a scientist.
2. if it was not for his skills and snagged by operation "Paper Clip" would have tried as a Nazis war criminal.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3622 May 4, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed is fraud. Other than his site there is nothing about him on the web.
I mean look at his name:-
Laurence D Smart
Laurence De Smart
Laurence the Smart
That's a joke there to start off with.
Even if he was real his credentials B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed means:-
1. B.Sc.Agr., he is a glorified farmer.
2. Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed are basically the same thing.
As for his list of 100 scientists:-
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/29-100_scie...
20 are from the 20th century all are dead, none are from the the 21st and last on the list was Dr Wernher von Braun who:-
1. was an engineer not a scientist.
2. if it was not for his skills and snagged by operation "Paper Clip" would have tried as a Nazis war criminal.
Yep.

Once again the creationist troll is lying.

It is what they do best.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#3623 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
Once again the creationist troll is lying.
It is what they do best.
Apparently they all missed that bit in the bibull.
KJV

United States

#3624 May 4, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed is fraud. Other than his site there is nothing about him on the web.

I mean look at his name:-

Laurence D Smart

Laurence De Smart

Laurence the Smart

That's a joke there to start off with.

Even if he was real his credentials B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed means:-

1. B.Sc.Agr., he is a glorified farmer.
2. Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed are basically the same thing.

As for his list of 100 scientists:-
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/29-100_scie...

20 are from the 20th century all are dead, none are from the the 21st and last on the list was Dr Wernher von Braun who:-

1. was an engineer not a scientist.
2. if it was not for his skills and snagged by operation "Paper Clip" would have tried as a Nazis war criminal.
That should have read
"Laurence B Smart"
KJV

United States

#3625 May 4, 2013
The Big Bang

Evolution Says .....
The universe started with a huge explosion called the‘Big Bang’ 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang.

The Facts Are .....

(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295

(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning. No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang
Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295

(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with
the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24

(4) New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20

(5) "The Big Bang Theory is crumbling. But many of my colleagues refuse to believe it ..... But, as in Galileo's day, entrenched ideas are difficult to change ..... It does not bother cosmologists that there is no evidence for such speculation [of the Big Bang Theory] or that none of these ideas solves the problem". A quote by the plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, in the Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7

(6) "As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big
Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little
hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory." Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang Under Attack", Science Digest, Vol. 92, May, 1984 p:84

(7) "The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big-bang
cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang
cosmologies, the data are ignored". Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523

(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not
Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40

(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812

(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3626 May 4, 2013
KJV wrote:
The Big Bang
Evolution Says .....
The universe started with a huge explosion called the‘Big Bang’ 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang.
The Facts Are .....
(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning. No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang
Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with
the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24
(4) New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20
(5) "The Big Bang Theory is crumbling. But many of my colleagues refuse to believe it ..... But, as in Galileo's day, entrenched ideas are difficult to change ..... It does not bother cosmologists that there is no evidence for such speculation [of the Big Bang Theory] or that none of these ideas solves the problem". A quote by the plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, in the Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7
(6) "As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big
Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little
hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory." Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang Under Attack", Science Digest, Vol. 92, May, 1984 p:84
(7) "The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big-bang
cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang
cosmologies, the data are ignored". Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523
(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not
Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40
(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812
(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3
Well, well, well. Did you happen to notice that the *newest* of your references was from 1992? Did you stop to consider why that might be?

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#3627 May 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, well, well. Did you happen to notice that the *newest* of your references was from 1992? Did you stop to consider why that might be?
Not to mention it's an editorial piece.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#3628 May 4, 2013
KJV wrote:
The Big Bang
Evolution Says .....
The universe started with a huge explosion called the‘Big Bang’ 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang.
The Facts Are .....
(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning. No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang
Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with
the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24
(4) New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20
(5) "The Big Bang Theory is crumbling. But many of my colleagues refuse to believe it ..... But, as in Galileo's day, entrenched ideas are difficult to change ..... It does not bother cosmologists that there is no evidence for such speculation [of the Big Bang Theory] or that none of these ideas solves the problem". A quote by the plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, in the Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7
(6) "As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big
Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little
hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory." Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang Under Attack", Science Digest, Vol. 92, May, 1984 p:84
(7) "The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big-bang
cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang
cosmologies, the data are ignored". Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523
(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not
Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40
(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812
(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3
1. Evolution has nothing to do with Big Bang
2. Cobe proved Bang Bang correct.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3629 May 4, 2013
KJV wrote:
The Big Bang
Evolution Says .....
The universe started with a huge explosion called the‘Big Bang’ 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang.
The Facts Are .....
OK, let's take these lies one by one.
(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
The problem here is that neither one is able to account for the background radiation and its characteristics. For the last 10 years or so, we have been making precision measurements of that background radiation and it fully supports not just the basic Big bang theory, but the extension to the inflationary stage. While there were a great many things about the universe that were unknown in 1992, such as the age, rate of expansion, density, and composition of the universe, those question have been answered with astounding precision. In 1992, for example, the age of the universe was very uncertain: somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years was the standard range. Now, because of our understanding of the background radiation, that age has been narrowed down to 13.7 billion years.
(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning. No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang
Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
This is actually a lie. In the basic Big bang scenario, there simply *is* no time before the Big bang, so no influx of energy.
(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with
the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24
Except that the Big Bang is not an explosion in the conventional sense. Instead of matter moving through space, the Big Bang is an expansion of space itself. Furthermore, not long after this quote, the radiation from the early universe was discovered. The steady State theory was thereby disproven.
(4) New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20
In 1987, given what we knew at that time, there was much that *could* have been in doubt. Since that time, the evidence has substantiated the Big Bang with inflation scenario dramatically.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3630 May 4, 2013
KJV wrote:
(5) "The Big Bang Theory is crumbling. But many of my colleagues refuse to believe it ..... But, as in Galileo's day, entrenched ideas are difficult to change ..... It does not bother cosmologists that there is no evidence for such speculation [of the Big Bang Theory] or that none of these ideas solves the problem". A quote by the plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, in the Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7
(6) "As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big
Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little
hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory." Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang Under Attack", Science Digest, Vol. 92, May, 1984 p:84
I should point out that Hoyle was the main promoter of the Steady State scenario. This was a real alternative to the Big bang for decades until the actual evidence showed it was simply wrong. In particular, it has no way to account for the cosmic background radiation and the fact that it is an almost perfect black-body radiation. The many holes that existed in 1991 have been filled with evidence. And that evidence supports the Big bang scenario.
(7) "The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big-bang
cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang
cosmologies, the data are ignored". Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523
And so was the claim from over 30 years ago. But since that time, the weight of the evidence has shifted dramatically in favor of the Big Bang. In fact, we are now in the era of precision cosmology. that has happened because of instruments and data that simply didn't exist until about 15 years ago. Did you notice that *none* of your references was from after this time?
(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not
Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40
And that is another problem that was open in 1983 that has also been solved. Sorry, using out of date information only makes you look like a fool.
(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812
(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3
And again, that has changed dramatically with COBE, and WMAP. These probes have provided a huge amount of data that has confirmed the predictions of the Big Bang along with inflation. While there were many basic questions in 1995, these have been answered with precision since then.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#3631 May 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
The Big Bang
Evolution Says .....
The universe started with a huge explosion called the‘Big Bang’ 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang.
The Facts Are .....
(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning. No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang
Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with
the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24

cosmologies, the data are ignored". Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523
(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not
Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40
(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812
(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3
The Theory of Evolution says nothing cosmology.

Why do you lie when you know that ALL liars are going to burn in the lake of fire?

I guess you don't believe what the Biblesays either.

Welcome to the club.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#3632 May 5, 2013
nothing about cosmology

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3633 May 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
The Big Bang
Evolution Says .....
The universe started with a huge explosion called the‘Big Bang’ 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang.
The Facts Are .....
(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning. No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang
Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with
the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24
(4) New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20
(5) "The Big Bang Theory is crumbling. But many of my colleagues refuse to believe it ..... But, as in Galileo's day, entrenched ideas are difficult to change ..... It does not bother cosmologists that there is no evidence for such speculation [of the Big Bang Theory] or that none of these ideas solves the problem". A quote by the plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, in the Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7
(6) "As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big
Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little
hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory." Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang Under Attack", Science Digest, Vol. 92, May, 1984 p:84
(7) "The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big-bang
cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang
cosmologies, the data are ignored". Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523
(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not
Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40
(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812
(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3
Ignorant creationist bollocks from known troll with no proof of god.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 8 min woodtick57 2,610
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 21 min Uncle Sam 233,076
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 41 min thetruth 6
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 50 min thetruth 23,256
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 57 min thetruth 168
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 1 hr thetruth 14
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr ChristineM 1,454
More from around the web