1) Where did the Universe come from?
Man puts all his faith in cosmology to answer this fundamental question. But cosmology is not even science, it is just philosophy. This has meant that man has had to invent fudge factors to make his theories work, such as the totally-just-made-up stuff called Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Inflation. There isn’t a shred of any real laboratory evidence for any of them. Not any! They also claim the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation as the afterglow of the Big Bang, thus supposed to be coming from all directions. Yet it seems to be associated with the orbital plane of our solar system’s planets! But that makes no sense at all!
2) How did nothing explode?
According to the Big Bang story first there was ‘nothing’ and it exploded! When I say ‘nothing,’ I mean not even vacuum, not even matter, no energy, no space, no time, not anything. Nothing!
According to Stephen Hawking, the question of the origin of the universe does not even exist. He claims it began in every way imaginable and maybe even some that aren’t. He asks, why are we here? He simply says that the Universe selects those histories that lead to these conditions.* That is, the Universe made itself—there was no Creator. And that just makes no sense at all.
(*Hawking, S.W. & Hertog, T., Phys. Rev.D 73, 123527 (2006))
3) How did stars and galaxies form?
There is no known law of nature (physics) that allows stars to form originally from clouds of gas, which supposedly came from the big bang. Fundamental physics must be violated* or one must invent unknown stuff—Dark Matter—with the right properties to get stars to form naturalistically.* Without it, it just can’t happen.
(*Jeans limit must be overcome by either compression of or cooling the cloud. Usually simulations are started with an over density such that the Jeans mass is achieved. Jeans mass =Kρ–1/2 T3/2, where K is a constant, ρ is the cloud density, and T is the absolute temperature. ** It has been proposed that an exploding star can compress a gas cloud, but that hardly qualifies as an explanation for the origin of stars in the first place. )
4) How come all rocks dated with Carbon-14 give ‘absolute ages’ less than 56,000 yrs?
Practically all carbon bearing rocks including inorganic minerals found on Earth over the past 40 years contain Carbon-14. Why is that? None should exist after 100,000 years. They say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Coal that is assumed to be at least 30 million years old was dated with Carbon-14 to be only 45,000 years old, using evolutionary assumptions. Diamonds, which are pure carbon and meant to be at least 1 billion years old, have been dated to be only 55,700 years old with carbon-14. The millions and billions of years must be wrong. Using biblical assumptions these ages become less than 5,000 years. See also here.
Image courtesy of Boykung at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
5) How do you determine the absolute age of a fossil?
Evolutionary stories tell us that the millions of fossils in the sedimentary layers found all over the Earth give dates in line with microbes evolving into man over the past 3 billion years. But it is impossible to determine the absolute age of any fossil. It must be dated by the sediments it is found in. And how are the sedimentary layers dated? By the fossils found in them–circular reasoning! And even when they use radioactive minerals (in associated volcanic material) to ‘date’ sediments, they must make untestable assumptions. Even so, different methods commonly disagree with each other.
6) Why hasn’t evolution been observed?
You can’t do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Prof. Richard Dawkins said “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.”* Which, of course, makes no sense at all.
(*Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network)
7) How does specific complex coded information in DNA arise by chance?
Single-celled organisms have much less information in their DNA than a human does. If the complex evolved from the less complex, information had to have been added. Prof. Richard Dawkins was asked to give one such example. He couldn’t, and hasn’t because evolution does not happen. Information comes from an intelligent mind, not by random processes. When DNA is copied, information is overwhelmingly lost, not added.
Evolutionists also claim that the DNA coded information storage system itself ‘evolved’. Yet no coding system (such as written language) has ever come into existence except by intelligent design. Furthermore, DNA is the densest information storage system known in the universe! Molecules cannot create a code out of themselves. Evolution is a total failure in explaining such things.
8) How did life arise from non-living chemicals by random chance?
Finally, an even bigger problem, if that’s possible. Nobody knows how life arose from non-living chemicals.* To say anything different is just plain foolish.
(* See for example: Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth? or How Did Life Begin? –New Theory on the Origins of Life on Earth & Other Planets)
So don’t be fooled. Actually when we look at the various arguments supporting evolution, we can see that they are just plain foolish.
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Not the Big Bang but the Creator God.
“God created man in his own image, …” (Genesis 1:27).
All men are descended from Adam. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve sinned against God and so God cursed them and the whole universe.
“…sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” (Romans 5:12)
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)
All deserve death “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3:23) but Jesus fully paid the penalty on the Cross—as only a Holy God could—for those who repent of their sins.
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12,13)
Download this article as a pdf tract: 8 Reasons Why Evolution is Foolish
8 Reasons Why Evolution is Foolish (CMI Low Resolution)
Related Reading
- Cosmology is not science!
- Has the ‘smoking gun’ of the ‘Big Bang’ been found?
- Hey, not so fast with the Nobel prize!
- Why is a 6000-year-old universe so hard to believe?
- Cosmic mythology: Exposing the big bang as philosophy not science
- The cosmological principle and geocentrism
- Cosmic evolution–myth or fact?
- Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis
- Geological conflict
- Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend
- Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!
Recommended Reading
- Book: Apocalypse Now: On the Revelation of Jesus Christ
- Book: Merchants of Death: Global Oligarchs and Their War On Humanity
Follow me
- Telegram.org: @GideonHartnett
- Facebook: Gideon Hartnett
- X (Twitter): @gideon195203
To be notified by email put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen. You’ll get an email each time we publish a new article.
Click this image to make a secure Donation (Stripe) !
Bible Science Forum 
22 responses to “8 Reasons Why Evolution is Foolish”
Great article, John! May I have permission to split this into 8 sections and share it on my Facebook page (with links back to here of course)? I’d like to add one each day for 8 days.
LikeLike
Wow… This is pretty darn misinformed. Your God is infinite. Science and Christianity do not have to be mutually exclusive. Evolution HAS been observed. Moth populations whose home was segmented by a highway have since evolved into two separate species.
God used comets and asteroids to deliver things like DNA and other material to our planet. The moment you can open your mind to think God used “making Eve out of rib and clay” as a tool to teach about sin and not as actual fact, the true wonders of your infinite God will reveal themselves. Pulsars, gamma ray shooters, and galactic formations are all part of His works. And He is bigger than just a man in white robes with his son at his side.
LikeLike
Madeline, it would seem to me that you are the one misinformed, but I mean no disrespect. Yes, I agree with you, my God, the Creator of the universe, of everything, is infinite. I agree also that science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, in fact, it was Christian scientists who have led the modern scientific revolution over the past 400 years. Understanding the immutability of God’s laws of nature led Christians like Sir Isaac Newton to discover great mysteries that the Greeks could not, being blinded by their ‘evolutionary’ ideas. See here.
You say ‘evolution HAS been observed’. Prof. Richard Dawkins meant it has not been observed in the lab, but only via circumstantial evidence in the fossil record. But circumstantial evidence of unseen past putative transitions is extremely weak evidence. You cite speciation of moths as an example of evolution. This is what evolutionists do. Define ‘evolution’ as change in living organisms, then extrapolate those small changes over billions of years for the needed large change to make people from pond scum. But this is flawed. The speciation you refer to is simply a result of a selection of genetic information that already exists in the moth population, or in many cases, it is due to a loss of some genetic information, like beetles on windy islands losing the ability to make wings and then out-populating the healthy beetles because the latter get blown into the sea. This is mutation and natural selection at work, but it is not evolution ie. addition of new genetic information. See Can mutations create new information?
Your statement that God used comets and asteroids to deliver DNA to our planet is a wildly religious speculation. Fred Hoyle, an atheist, proposed that idea, panspermia, because he realised the impossibility of evolution of new coded specific genetic information from a molecular soup via random chance processes. No evidence exists or is even claimed by the scientific community to support your claim. For this reason they are so desperate to propose any idea to validate abiogenesis (origin of life). See COSMIC EVOLUTION–MYTH OR FACT?
Trusting what God has said in His Word is to me a far better approach. God is omniscient and in the beginning created everything in the universe out of nothing. God is the first cause. He is the great I AM who has eternally existed. See YHWH THE CREATOR GOD His creation of Eve out of one of Adam’s rib is a better explanation than trying to believe in some 3.8 billion year sequence of organisms evolving from one to another until eventually Eve evolved. And yes, the Genesis text gives us the reason for sin resulting in death and why we need a Saviour.
Finally I agree with you that pulsars, gamma ray bursters and galactic formations are all parts of His creative works in the cosmos. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Ps 19:1). He is much bigger than a man in white robes, He is infinite as you said. His son Jesus Christ, who is the Creator, whose name in the Old Testament is Jehovah (meaning I AM, eternally existing) paid the price for our sins which condemn us to Hell. All that is necessary is that we change our mind and look to Him and He will save. It is a free gift, eternal life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madeline, you sort of allude that belief in God the Father (wearing a white robe) and his Son by his side verses having knowledge of the cosmos as somehow missing who God is, or as not having true insight? It is true that the whole of creation declares his wonder and majesty, and neither you nor I nor any one else can even begin to imagine what he is really like or understand his mind. Yet the whole Gospel message and purpose behind God’s Creation is that the Son has made it possible for us all to be reconciled to the Father and enjoy this same relationship, at His side, for eternity. God’s Plan from the very beginning.
On the other hand the theory of evolution, or, at least its outcome, has by and large, but not in every case, driven people away from God. In fact our scientific progress and knowledge doesn’t come anywhere near His understanding and wisdom. Let’s be honest even the greatest scientist alive today would agree that we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface. It would be laughable really if it wasn’t so serious that we actually dare to believe our feeble, by comparison, so-called scientific theories so as to challenge holy scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit and even boast that because of these assertions God doesn’t even exist (not the case with you I accept, but certainly with the many).
All the science and discovery is amazing, and bit by bit man is finding the truth. As fallen man’s desire is to avoid coming face to face with his Creator (although it is unavoidable in the end) because of sin however, such discoverys are often suppressed, discounted, or explained away through some new weird and wonderful theory.
Please don’t dismiss the simplicity of God’s plan, in exchange for a so-called higher knowledge. Jesus, God in the flesh, who created the whole Universe, came in His fullness, to Earth as a human being, humbly born to a young virgin Jewish girl called Mary, who was betrothed to a carpenter, Joseph. He was born in a shack or similar really, in a small Israeli town, Bethlehem. From about the age of 30, He ministered for 3 years. He healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, calmed the storm, drove out demons, changed water to wine, was kind, forgave people their sins, stood against hypocrisy etc etc. He was brutally tortured, crucified and then rose from the dead for us all. He created us, designed us, loves us, He knows us and He cares for us. Knowing him is all that ultimately matters and we are saved through faith by grace—it is a gift we receive by believing and trusting in Him and not by works. He changes lives and He is just brilliant!
Madeline just be careful some kinds of so-called higher knowledge (man-made stuff because some find scripture hard to digest) can prevent us and others from ever receiving this gift and entering into a real everlasting relationship with Him. The alternative is unthinkable!!
LikeLike
Yes, provided it is referenced to the source here.
LikeLike
56,000 years is simply as far back as carbon dating is useful, so it isn’t used for rocks. It doesn’t give an absolute age of a rock, it gives a null result. Saying carbon14 dating of rocks gives absolute ages of 56,000 is Lying for Jesus. He doesn’t need your kind of help.
LikeLike
You’re information is not correct. Modern AMS (accelerator mass spectrometers) have a sensitivity, based on the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 (14C/12C) ratio, as small as what would represent 90,000 years, including the assumptions of constant 14C decay rate, the same 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere today and zero initial 14C in the environment (ie all from cosmic ray bombardment). But these assumptions are likely wrong because 14C is still accumulating in our atmosphere, the Earth’s magnetic field has decayed as much as 30% in the last 400 years and affects the 14C/12C ratio, just for starters. You only say it gives a null result because of your belief in long ages and the putative geologic history of the Earth, which is needed to give sufficient time for biological evolution to occur. So your rejection of the resulting dates is based on your belief system not science.
I am not lying for Jesus, the dates I give are from radiometric dating labs, I did not make it up. Based on my belief system, from the Bible, I also don’t believe the number 56,000 years because the Bible chronology gives only about 6,000 years, but this evidence highlights the problem of dating methods and shows that the evolution story cannot be taken seriously. Read WHY IS A 6000-YEAR-OLD UNIVERSE SO HARD TO BELIEVE?
If however you apply biblical assumptions and allow for a change in 14C accumulation as well as Noah’s flood burying a massive amount of C12 from the then biosphere the date you get for the 14C/12C ratio in the coal samples becomes closer to 4,500 years. This I do believe as it is consistent with the biblical date of the global Flood in Noah’s day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do realize that carbon dating is only one dating form. There are many others such as potassium dating which allow us to determine ages much farther back.
As for the stars and galaxies violating fundemental physical laws there is a well known force which over millions of years would cause the collapse of gas and dust into stars. It’s gravity.
LikeLike
Yes, carbon dating is only one radiometric dating method, but in a sample of coal it is probably the only method that you could apply (coal being nearly 100% carbon). Coal that was dated by 3 independent secular dating labs was supposed to be at least 30 million years old but the 3 labs all returned the same date of about 45,000 years.
Then many of the other methods used in igneous or crystalline rock samples return wildly different dates. The so-called “correct” date is only chosen based on the evolutionary story it is meant to fit. Take for example Potassium – Argon (K/Ar) method on lava flows in Hawai’i: Mt Kilauea, known by eye witness account to have flowed less than 200 years ago returned dates of 0 to 22 million years (Ref: Noble and Naughton, 1968. Science, 162:265) and Mt Hualalai, with documented flows in 1800 – 1801 returned dates between 160 and 3,300 million years (Funkhouse and Naughton, 1968. J. Geophysical Res., 73:4606). These are hardly consistent with only being 200 years old.
In regards to the formation of stars, there is no known law of physics that can compress the gas of some nebula cloud to overcome the self-heating effect of the cloud as it is compressed. This is called the Jeans’ limit and gravity alone is a much too weak a force. It just can’t do it. Hence some propose a nearby supernova (exploding star) to create a compression of the cloud that compresses it beyond the Jeans’ limit where gravity can then take over. But that creates a chicken-egg problem, which came first.
So to simulate star formation in computers astrophysicists will start with a state where the Jeans’ limit has been overcome via some instability or they will simply assume a lot of “dark matter” (unobserved stuff that has the right density and properties to do the job). And for galaxy and galaxy cluster formation all that is done is assume a universe of dark matter. Forget about normal matter; that is too much of a problem. Hence I say dark matter is a fudge factor, and will remain so unless it can be properly identified and detected, and I don’t mean through a proxy like galaxy rotation curves etc, ie dynamics observed but invisible to all electromagnetic radiation. Cosmology today is in serious trouble with its putative dark matter solutions, stuff that is like the Emperor’s new clothes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s bordering on foolish that the first five of your ‘reasons’ are to do with astronomy and geology NOT biology.
LikeLike
The word “evolution” is used in a cosmic sense in the article. It does not mean only biological evolution. Cosmologists use this same approach. For example Cosmic Evolution which states “From Big Bang to Humankind…..Cosmic evolution is the study of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of energy, matter and life in the thinning and cooling Universe.” I use the word in the exact same sense. See COSMIC EVOLUTION–MYTH OR FACT?
LikeLike
Hartnett IS lying, just as alleged above. Radiocarbon dating is reliable (see that Wikipedia link) but cannot date materials older than around 62,000 years as the amounts still detectable would be so minute. “You only say it gives a null result because of your belief in long ages and the putative geologic history of the Earth”. What nonsense you write. A null result occurs – because the material in question is too old to be accurately dated using the radiocarbon method. That is the fact of the matter. Nothing to do with religious or other ‘beliefs’.
LikeLike
If you read his comments, he calls everyone a liar. There is no reason for disagreement on the interpretations of evidence or even error. If you disagree with him, Darwin, “the consensus”, the inerrant Wikipedia or other sources, you’re simply labeled a liar.
LikeLike
I agree radiocarbon dating is reliable if we understand the inherent assumptions. The radiocarbon dates I am referring to were determined by 3 different radiometric dating labs. They dated coal samples at 45,000 years old and diamond samples at 56,000 years old. I think reputable dating labs to be more credible than a wikipedia source. Besides the claim “too old to be accurately dated” involves the circular reasoning I refer to in the assumptions inherent in your long age beliefs. How can you judge it is too old? Only by comparison with prior expected dates.
It is also a fact that most carbon bearing minerals, found on earth, whether they be from organic or inorganic origin, contain Carbon-14. This is a problem for the long age belief system. If the minerals were older than 100,000 years there would be no detectable Carbon-14 in them, but all have measurable amounts. They routinely display significant and reproducible Carbon-14 levels, typically two orders of magnitude or more above the threshold sensitivity of the AMS detection system. These amounts typically would return dates of around 40,000 years if no contamination is assumed and subtracted. But to account for this problem, the dating community would claim in situ contamination. This is often 0.44 percent modern carbon, but some labs will subtract off as much as 0.8 percent of modern carbon, as they have assumed it to be contamination, from unknown sources. After 30 million years coal certainly should have no trace of Carbon-14 and this is where the long age paradigm affects how the science is dealt with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. Where to begin.
1) Where did the Universe come from?
/* This has meant that man has had to invent fudge factors to make his theories work, such as the totally-just-made-up stuff called Dark Energy, Dark Matter*/
Actually that is a fudge factor for the standard model of cosmology.
/* Inflation. There isn’t a shred of any real laboratory evidence for any of them. Not any! */
So WMAP, Planck Mission, Chandra X-ray Observatory don’t count?
/* They also claim the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation as the afterglow of the Big Bang, thus supposed to be coming from all directions. Yet it seems to be associated with the orbital plane of our solar system’s planets! But that makes no sense at all! */
Apart from the “orbital plane of our solar system’s planets” isn’t at 3K in the night-sky, nor does the idea of such a plane match up with the CBR and its angular distribution.
LikeLike
Inflation: You list some space-borne telescopes that have collected data at millimetre wave (WMAP and PLANCK) and X-ray frequencies (Chandra). The former supposedly offer evidence for the inflation epoch of the big bang in BICEP2 detection of B-mode polarized photons over a certain scale size on the sky. See HAS THE ‘SMOKING GUN’ OF THE ‘BIG BANG’ BEEN FOUND? and HEY, NOT SO FAST WITH THE NOBEL PRIZE! for what can really be objectively concluded.
Actually my statement “There isn’t a shred of any real laboratory evidence for any of them. Not any!” is quite true. When I say laboratory I mean a local laboratory that we can apply repeatable experimental physics to. Dark mater for instance has been sought for at least 40 years and though recently there have been some claims, none has been detected.
From the data of COBE, WMAP and PLANCK satellites has come a very significant discovery, a preferred axis in the cosmos. It has been dubbed the “Axis of Evil” by astrophysicists. It was detected in the CMB radiation anisotropies (deviations from the smooth blackbody temperature of 2.73K) by expanding them into spherical harmonic expansion terms. This preferred direction has been found to be aligned with the plane of our solar system, but if the big bang was a true event, it should have nothing to do with our location in space nor a direction defined by the plane of the orbit of the planets, nor the two points in a year where the apparent position of our sun crosses the Earth’s equator. The latter is purely an artifact of the Earth’s axial tilt. See THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND GEOCENTRISM.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2) How did nothing explode?
For starters where in Big Bang cosmology does it posit “nothing” and “exploding”?
/* According to the Big Bang story first there was ‘nothing’ and it exploded! */
Apart from Big Bang cosmology doesn’t actually state this at all.
/* When I say ‘nothing,’ I mean not even vacuum, not even matter, no energy, no space, no time, not anything. Nothing! */
And when you say the Big Bang states this you are been purposefully dishonest.
Big Bang Cosmology doesn’t really make any claims before the Planck epoch.
/*According to Stephen Hawking, the question of the origin of the universe does not even exist. He claims it began in every way imaginable and maybe even some that aren’t. He asks, why are we here? He simply says that the Universe selects those histories that lead to these conditions.* That is, the Universe made itself—there was no Creator. And that just makes no sense at all.
(*Hawking, S.W. & Hertog, T., Phys. Rev.D 73, 123527 (2006)) .*/
And he would be right.
Asking what happened before the Big Bang is a meaningless question. As you alluded to yourself – “no time’. In Big Bang cosmology at the point of the Big Bang T = 0, as in time equals zero.
Before is a function of time, you can’t logically apply a function of time before time exists. If you want to disagree, show how. Otherwise the point is moot.
LikeLike
The front cover of the April 2002 issue of Discover magazine. Beneath the heading ‘Where Did Everything Come From?’ is a picture of a large red marble, with the caption: ‘The universe at about 10^-34 seconds (ACTUAL SIZE)’. The marble measures 2 centimetres in diameter. The text beneath it reads:
And also Alun Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT, quoted from Before, Meanwhile and After the BIG BANG — (M-Theory), http://youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAagw6iug, 11 September 2007.
So according to Guth it must have ‘banged’.
Actually, cosmologist do attempt to explain the cause of the big bang, or a ‘before’ the big bang, but it depends on what you include in big bang theory. That is what Stephen Hawking is referring to. He works from the premise of the big bang expanding smoothly out of a singularity, and that is before the Planck epoch. M-Theory is being used to look for a solution to the first cause problem. Ok, ‘exploded’ is more of a colloquial term. But the singularity is sometimes called “the Big Bang”. And Hawking’s work has been to show that it is possible for time to be bounded in the past without there being a specific first moment! So depending on whether you want to allow for higher dimensional M-theory or not, the big bang resulted from either nothing as stated (note: it is often referred to as the ‘ultimate free lunch’) or you now have to call on your ‘god of the gaps’ of some yet-to-be-developed multidimensional quantum theory. Ultimately it is like positive thinking, but really it is scientism, the belief that science can and will deliver, eventually, the answers.
LikeLike
3) How did stars and galaxies form?
/* There is no known law of nature (physics) that allows stars to form originally from clouds of gas, which supposedly came from the big bang. */
Gravitational forces…?
/* Fundamental physics must be violated* or one must invent unknown stuff—Dark Matter—with the right properties to get stars to form naturalistically.* Without it, it just can’t happen. */
EH?
/* *Jeans limit must be overcome by either compression of or cooling the cloud. Usually simulations are started with an over density such that the Jeans mass is achieved. Jeans mass =Kρ–1/2 T3/2, where K is a constant, ρ is the cloud density, and T is the absolute temperature. ** It has been proposed that an exploding star can compress a gas cloud, but that hardly qualifies as an explanation for the origin of stars in the first place. */
And yet you remain some what quite [sic] on the subject on the physics of hydrogen molecules , why is that?
Nothing in that hydrogen can-not cool below 200 kelvins, so making this the lower limit to the temperature of the first star-forming clumps. Then neglecting to mention that the cooling from molecular hydrogen is inefficient when the density is increased and when the clumps start to collapse.
So what happens at these densities? The molecules of hydrogen collide with other atoms before they have time to emit a IR photon. Raising the gas temp and slowing the contraction till the clumps have accumulated a few hundred solar masses.
Now since you mentioned Jeans limit, would you care to comment on what effect the inefficiency of molecular hydrogen cooling has on it?
LikeLike
Yes, the gravitational force is the only force available to collapse the cloud but it is inefficient to collapse the molecular clouds against the thermodynamic heating that is concomitant with the pressure increase due to these gravitational forces. Question #3 is not only about formation of single stars, but also clusters and, of course, includes the formation of galaxies. Quite clearly it is a problem because astronomers today look to ‘dark matter’ as the only solution (which you seemed to acknowledge previously to be a fudge factor). Quoting here from a NASA article Herschel Measures Dark Matter Required for Star-Forming Galaxies indicates the severity of this problem:
said astronomer Asantha Cooray of the University of California, Irvine. He is the principal investigator of new research appearing in the journal Nature, online on Feb. 16 and in the Feb. 24 [2011] print edition.
Possibly you are quoting from R.B. Larson and V. Bromm, The First Stars in the Universe, Sci. Am., Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 4-11, 2004 or something similar. Here I quote them from page 7:
Dark matter is used in the simulations to get the normal baryonic matter to fall into the potential wells created by the assumed dark matter at filamentary nodes and hence accumulate baryonic matter there. In most large scale simulations ONLY dark matter is used, no normal matter at all. But here, the normal matter then is compressed in these higher density regions, and it heats up significantly. In the simulations cooling is achieved by IR radiation channels, but the amount of dark matter (a free parameter) must be finely tuned or you get the wrong result. But all the while this is really just story telling because to start with the simulations will not work without the dark matter. Hence a fictitious entity is necessary, thus I said ‘fundamental laws of physics must be violated’. Cooling via molecular hydrogen to 200K and clumping is only part of the story. Without the dark matter you would not even get the cloud to form sufficiently to need to look for a cooling channel.
But don’t you see how this is all predicated on the worldview being held that the matter of all stars and galaxies originated from the big bang and the story like is described in the Sci. Am. article I referenced above? But there is plenty of contrary evidence to this story of star/galaxy formation. See for example: HALTON ARP—BIG-BANG-DEFYING GIANT PASSES AWAY and GALAXY-QUASAR ASSOCIATIONS. See also BIG BANG FUDGE FACTORS
Further to the problem of molecular hydrogen cooling the clouds, and this summarizes my main point. Star Formation and the Cooling of Molecular Clouds, states:
All of the discussion and cooling of the cloud takes place after the ‘unknown event’ that overcomes the thermodynamic heating of the cloud. This is because they cannot deal with this violation of known physics, or as the work around just add dark matter. And that millimetre-wave satellite studied real clouds that were already cooled way below the limit set by the Jean’s mass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
4) How come all rocks dated with Carbon-14 give ‘absolute ages’ less than 56,000 yrs?
/* Practically all carbon bearing rocks including inorganic minerals found on Earth over the past 40 years contain Carbon-14. Why is that? None should exist after 100,000 years. They say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Coal that is assumed to be at least 30 million years old was dated with Carbon-14 to be only 45,000 years old, using evolutionary assumptions. Diamonds, which are pure carbon and meant to be at least 1 billion years old, have been dated to be only 55,700 years old with carbon-14. The millions and billions of years must be wrong. Using biblical assumptions these ages become less than 5,000 years. */
Oh come on. Seriously?
How much β emission do you expect from a sample 1 billion years old?
LikeLike
Please read the other responses I have posted on the Carbon-14 issue. No point in repeating them. But it is interesting and a teaching moment when you say “How much β emission do you expect from a sample 1 billion years old?” You see this is your worldview speaking. You have automatically assumed the diamonds to be a billion years old, hence no one would bother to look for Carbon-14 in them. But someone crazy enough to spend the dollars did and they were dated by 3 independent dating labs. Significant Carbon-14 was found in them, and they returned an age of 55,700 years, with the usual assumptions. But if they were truly a billion years old you would expect find far less 14C, certainly way less than they did.
LikeLiked by 1 person