Considering Creation and the Bible; An atypical approach using various plausibility evaluation techniques.

To bang or not to bang? (And the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

     I first encountered the big bang theory reading Astronomy books probably in the mid 70's. It was taught in an Astronomy class that I took in HS in I think 1978 in fact as one possible theory explaining the red shift we observe in pretty much everything out there of great distance.
     I remember people evaluating it as a theory of origins...as speculation was made that possibly this was a repeating cycle through history forever! Of course I had just studied the past few years in Physics classes about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and I knew that this speculation totally violated that law. Though it holds only in a 'closed system', intuitively I knew that each galaxy that we see independently is massively entropic. And to say that somehow this large mass that eventually came apart in the big bang was not itself entropic...is sheer insanity/speculation. There is no real science that would even suggest such a thing. Of course ...the desire to believe there is no God would spur one to create such a model, much as the roman catholics contrived hand waving models of the cosmos to justify their beliefs that God had created everything in perfect harmony.

     Of course without something that is supernatural to put into being all that we call 'Matter', indeed at time t=infinity so to speak (which would be our current time if there was no beginning since time is an unbound convention and not a quantity. :-) In other words time goes on forever backward and forward. One must choose a reference point and begin counting to make use of time for anything practical. It's merely a convention by which we correlate events.) there will be a state called 'Heat Death' where all organized matter has degerenated to a point where no activity is any longer possible. Everything has 'run down' to lowest state terms.
     In fact I speculate that the fabric of the universe itself, whatever it is, taxes matter albeit ever so slowly and unnoticebly. But that's my own speculation :-). I have the right to do that now and then don't I? However I ALSO adhere to a viable theory which runs in the face of the Big Bang theory. And yes it actually IS a more viable theory than the Big Bang and I'll tell you why.
     If you do a little research you'll find that there are a couple major observations which supposedly make a mockery of my speculation above. However ONE of them (Cosmic Background Radiation or CMB) assumes the universe to be a black body radiator (which it isn't by definition!) then says "Oh look! The data fits! Well..this reminds me of people going "Oh look I found a code that makes Ronald Reagan's name be 666! HERE IS A GREAT article outlining the historical views on the temperature of space:

History of Space temperature estimates

Note how 'tired light' proponents had fit the temperature to 1.9 to 6 degrees Kelvin but big bangers are convinced it MUST be 2.7K because after all..space is a black body radiator right? NO! What kind of imbeciles nodded their heads when this was proposed??!! This is PURELY a self-substantiating loop based on the assumption of the big bang expansion. Certainly the same PROPERTY that causes the curve in a black body spectrum IS at work (being as the same 'fabric' that allows EM to propagate and field lines to exist also exists in the black body radiator :-) ) however space is NOT that same construct. So WHY would we assume that it has that same temperature as a black body radiator with that spectrum would have? COULD this not be rather a situation where space is warmer like peole historically thought? And that instead the energy for CMB is being supplied by the absorption of energy from EM that is propagating everywhere through this medium? Here is the CMB data we have:

CMB data

It's a distribution that is shaped like a black body radiator. But what IS a black body radiator? It's an energy source that is determined by the temperature of the space therein. But the BOUNDARY conditions play into this and that seems to be what has been forgotten by the brilliant minds behind this one. Space is made of the same stuff so OF COURSE we get a similar distribution of radiation. But we can't straight across apply the black body radiator scenario to space because it isn't one. It has no boundaries known to man anyway :-)

OK the OTHER major bit of research that supposedly contests the 'tired light' theory, has to do with dilation in various supernova re-emissions. There seems to be a fairly predictable pattern among nearby supernovae when they are observed. In supernova with great red shift we see a measurable dilation it seems on average. Though there is weird data that is just totally ON the flat line....while the majority of the data seems to follow the curve fitting with actual motion away from us. Anyway there is a limited amount of data and given that there are strong deviations I wonder if some of these nuts might have just conspired to doctor the data. I'd like to see WHO gathered which data points. Surely all of the studies weren't done by the same people but I'll bet a bunch of them were. Anyway let's remember this one and let's move on with some reasons why I *know* that the big bang did not happen as generally taught.

     First of all, no wave in nature that we know of moves without some 'taxation' of the energy by the medium, except light/EM energy. Well..possibly except EM energy :-). I say possibly because there really is no experiment that we can construct at this time to verify whether or not these are 'taxed' in their movements. Because according to our Red Shift data, it takes QUITE a long distance before any weighted average red shift is noted in objects. Such a great distance that our instruments on earth are incapable of constructing any experiment which could prove to us that this red shift occurse simply from the propogation process!
     Thus since it is a logical question to ask since every other kind of wave DOES get taxed, and since there is no way to verify whether it does or not, this must remain a theory unless it is absolutely proven by some means that the red shift IS attributed to things moving just faster and faster away from us OR the properties of the medium changing way out there or whatever.
     In any case, note that we have pretty much an 'earth centered phenomena' if red shift is due to things moving away from us. (Let me qualify that WERE we prefectly in the center of the old 'bang' then all things would move symmetrically away from us theoretically. At the other extreme, if we were first OUT of the bang which..something had to have been... then we'd see stark nothingness in one direction, and a gradation of velocities up to TWICE possibly of ours from the bang (assuming we can see all the way to the other end of things.) And that should throw up red flags for anyone who is remotely aware of some of the fallacies in the history of scientific thought :-). If there are two choices and one involves the earth being the center of the entire universe basically...you pick the other theory. Some try to double talk their way around this claiming 'no the universe is expanding and it looks the same from everywhere! Noo...it doesn't. According to the data things at *any* other location in the universe basically would see a 'band' in their sky of things which are VERY far away but regionally have much less red shift than the things they see towards us for instance. WE however see a nice uniform average in any direction red shift vs. distance.
     Secondly why do we see SOME blue shifted objects? The obvious answer would be "Because Gravity affected things over time and they now have components of velocity towards each other". But let's examine a very clear case where this simply does NOT work within the 14 Billion or less year estimate of the age of the universe since the 'big fizzle'.

The Andromeda Galaxy (known as M31) is estimated 2.4 MLY away. Triangulum's M33 galaxy is smaller by still good sized. The two of them are 750,000LY away. M33 is about 3 MLy away from us. All fine and dandy. Until we look at their velocities. FIRST let's consider their recently measured 'proper motions' (ie. the movement we would be able to triangulate if we had instruments that precise...)

M33 is moving generally towards M31 at a good clip. M31 has a much lower proper motion. I think about 200km/sec they are estimating for M33. So by examing these components first it will help clear our head of potential confusion. Because what we discover is, that 2 billion years ago the orientation of things in terms of HOW they are being affected by known gravitational sources really has not changed that much. At this clip my calculations show that M33 would have moved about 1.3Mly in that time. PUtting it much further from M31, and as we'll see some further from us also. But in terms of our LOCAL SYSTEM, only fractionally closer or further from objects like M81 and M74 that are 20Mly or more away from us!! And below, you'll see that over 14 billion years the accelerations they cause isn't going to add up to much anyway in terms of explaining the velocities that we've now firmly established here.

WE MUST stay focused on the assertion that Big Bang makes. IF everything expanded from a single point in space, then they initially were moving only radially. And of course the fact that it all winds up in these relatively *tiny* islands of matter concentration is...another issue that makes no sense. We normally find in nature that as we compress things, particles tend to get more and more dissociated in their arrangements. ie. at normal pressures metals can organize into lattices for instance. BUT if you were to COMPRESS things with enough pressure, then eventually those kinds of bonds won't align and you wind up with a much more volatile material eventually in theory. Don't be confused by things like Hydrogen which is gaseous at RT. THen if you compress it eventually like Jupiter's core it will become metalic. Yup.. But then if you were to be able to compress it even fruther, eventually there would be no way for the matter to align in such a way as to be in a resonant metalic lattice bond. So we don't really know but it would seem logical to assume that it would fall also into some state of extreme volatility. Without the gravitational pressure of course the material for the bang wouldn't hold together. But scientists claim that it could have. Well whatever. MY assertion though is that if it *did* that if would likely be in a state of disarray. Complete..disarray. So that when it began to expand it would logically expand like a vapor. Not in little pockets of material that would form these amazing galaxies that we see! Rather..just randomly scattered material. BUT THAT is another topic and totally unnecessary for the disproving of the big bang that we are undertaking here.

SO anyway we've established that a few billion years ago the orientation of things wouldn't have been really significantly different in terms of who is attracting who at a significant rate and so we want to move now to look at what happened a few billion years ago here in our local system. Let's now consider the *normal* component of velocity (the one towards us).

Since M31 and M33 are so close there is no doubt that the blue shifts (even if EM radiation fatigue exists...) represent something close to their actual velocities towards us. M31 is moving at about 275Km/sec towards us and M33 180Km/sec. Close to 100km/sec difference! Calculating, if those speeds were the same 1.8 billion years ago M31 and M33 would be the *same* distance from us!

Now here's the thing. We are the only signficant unbalanced force acting on them. M81 is a large galaxy but it's 20 Mly away. And it's currently about equidistant between M31 and M33 so it's a totally moot contributor. Meanwhile M74 in Pisces is the only object really positioned to make a significant impact except again it's simply too far away to weigh in on the big picture here. 30 Mly +-6. And it's not as bit as M81. It will contribute a difference in acceleration of a trivial nature. Let's just calculate that right now.

Since gravity falls off as a 1/r^2 function, It's overall influence is 1/60th of the Milky Way. And of that it affects M33 in deceleration perhaps 15% or like that more than M31. But anyway let's take a WORST case scenario here. Let's say that all galaxies for convenience are 10^42Kg. That's not far from ours. We don't know the precise masses of the other galaxies but there is good reason to believe due to the observations we have that they are in the same league. It'll serve our purposes just fine as you'll see since the accelerations even if they were twice, 4, or 10X that amount it really wouldn't affect the outcome.

But the equation for gravitational acceleration at these non-relativitivistic speeds is

A = G x (mass/radius^2) Simple enough. So the acceleration I calculate on an object even 20Mly away like M81 of this size (though M81 as I say really isn't enough difference in distance from M31 and M33 to be of much impact.. but just to get a concept...) is about 58M/sec/billion years. I use that unit because it gives us maximum clarity as to the significance or..insignificance in this case of the gravity of these objects towards causing the kinds of velocities we see in only 14 billion years.

Now I've done the math and got something like 15m/sec/billion years DIFFERENCE in accelerations for M31 and M33 currently by the PIsces M74 galaxy. Just do the work yourself if you dont' believe me. Get a good star map. Realize that M74 is at least 24Mly way and GO TO WORK! But I think it's intuitively obvious from just glancing at a star map that if it's maximum contribution in acceleration from EITHER was around 50m/sec/billion years, then since M31 and M33 are only 750,000LY apart...that it can't affect them differentially more than that. 15 sounds a little high actually. Someone check my work and let me know what you get.. BUT IT IS PEANUTS FOLKS. That's my point. We don't need precise figures here. We just need to see that over 14 billion years, this would only amount to some trivial amount of velocity increase. NOTHING that would account for 200KILOMETERS...thats KILOMETERS per second folks!

(I just conversed with an alleged professional astronomer in a facebook group who claimed I was underplaying the significance of M81! Funny how he didn't even seem aware that M81 wasn't even the galaxy positioned to BE significant in causing a difference. But even if it *was* we are talking a totally trivial influence from these objects. )

Meanwhile, to be thorough, here is a list of the significant mass concentrations science has established in our local system:

Wikipedia on our Local system

Now you see a lot of small dwarf galaxies scattered around. But the only heavy hitters are ours and those very near us which can essentially be considered one in this gravitational force calculation, M31 and those very near it, and M33. People speculate about 'dark matter' but if there was some significant imbalanced amount of it somewhere hey..everything with mass emits radiation. Surely something of this significance would have been identified by now. But real science has only established THESE as significant contributions to the equation.

SO this being the case we can easily assess the situation. The acceleration due to our galaxy on M31 currently is at most 6km/sec/billion years! In other words even in the age of the universe this acceleration can't even account for the DIFFERENCE in the accelerations of M33 and M31...not to mention their total velocities towards us! The universe is currently estimated to be 13.4 or so Billion years after the 'big bang'.

Here is a link to the Physics Forum where I initially asked where to find all the blue shift data and then probed people a bit about how to interpret these results. I was removed from the forum. You can see my name crossed out. Nice people. It's funny when people say 'have you had this peer reviewed'. It's so absurd. You can't even talk about it on a stupid internet forum without being kicked out.

So I conclude that typical random/believable velocities PLUS a continual baseline of red shift proportional to distance EXACTLY matches the kind of distribution we see. Whereas 'everything is expanding' [away from us pretty much..like..did we fluff or something?] totally misses it with the blue shift. Of course the opponents will fall back on a claim that there is some dark matter gravity source that we simply haven't charted yet. (hereby known as the 'pink unicorn') I argue however that such an object would have a gravity field that should show distortions in something probably and possibly occlude an area, and it would be in a location that would differentially accelerate M31 past M33.

The problem is we are NOW getting proper motion estimates for M33 and M31 finally. And we are seeing a VERY large motion of M33 towards M31. But M31 is pretty much just heading our way. Which would..put the object directly between us and M31 then? That shouldn't be too hard to detect I wouldn't think.

     Further, as a final note I've done, several decades ago, the calculations on best case mass decelerating objects expanding supposedly at good fractions of the speed of light way out there, and it appears that the distant galaxies are indeed going bye bye. There isn't enough gravity to ever pull them back in if there is indeed a big boom scenario. It'll only happen once...unless..there's a big rubber wall out there somewhere :-)


Capture Theory?

     This is such a foundational fallacy of so many arguments you will see regarding the progression of things in the cosmos. I've seen just retarded arguments on sites like "Space.com" where some person who probably barely got through some general science classes teaches that, for example, as asteroids encounter Jupiter's gravity, that they are pulled along or some such thing to collide with other asteroids! Uhh..no. The TRICK is in the language. "Encounter" Jupiter's gravity? That is just foolish language. These asteroids...all of them...are CONTINUALLY experiencing Jupiter's gravity no matter WHERE in the universe they might be! :-) There is a 1/r^2 relationship in the intensity of that gravity. However there is a continuum and ALL of the asteroids responds simultaneously to Jupiter's gravity such that as they begin to draw closer in their orbits, their orbits gather both radial and tangential acceleration components! However the one in front of that one is accelerating MORE. And the one that has just PASSED it's closest point to Jupiter is moving the FASTEST. It will now begin to slow down...but certainly nothing behind it is going to catch up at all! For they aren't moving as fast until THEY get to that point. SEE? Each particle in the asteroid belt follows a continuous harmonious path all in sync with each other. ANY relative sustained increase in velocities they have to one another DID NOT come from Jupiter's gravity. That is just total hogwash! And I can't believe they had that stupid article on a site with such a ..prominent name but oh well. BEWARE of what you read on the internet. Did some stupid kid buy the website before any educated people had a chance to snag it? You..never know. Somebody with lots of money buy it and get rid of all the misleading junk on it!
     Ok so this lays the groundwork of understanding for dispelling "capture theory". Classical Mechanics is the college physics class you should take if you want to understand how things interact largely in outer space. Bear in mind that the reason all galaxies are such beautiful things instead of just one big black hole, is that ALL the objects therein have velocities with respect to one another. And if forms this vastly complex 3D picture. When these velocities happen to bring two objects near each other (take a comet grazing the sun for instance) THERE IS A RULE. An object that is not already in an elliptical orbit WILL NOT ENTER ONE unless it collides with something that alters it into an elliptical orbit. All other objects will remain in a hyperbolic orbit which means they visit..and they leave never to return atain unless their course is altered by yet another radical/chance interaction somewhere...millions of years later.
     So since collisions in space are very very rare do the the 10^15 or so space:signficant mass ratio within a galaxy even (much much less outside galaxies obviously) almost every interaction involves a hyperbolic path. EVEN if gravity is very strong like in a black hole possibly, the gravity is STILL FINITE. It STILL obeys the laws of physics. The only things captured are USUALLY the things already in the black hole. Because the universe is quite old apparently and statistically most of the things that had no tangential component to the objects that were inside it that came together to form the black hole are already IN the black hole :-). THAT is why we see the galaxies as these swirling masses of stars. Most things have that diverse velocity profile and it allows them to move in hyperbolic paths around one another.
     What an awesome universe and so sad that so many don't learn enough physics to at least explore the basic elements of how things in it interact. It's a beautiful science and I strongly urge people who are interested in speculating about such things to complete at least something close to a BS in Physics.


How did the planets get in their orbits in the first place?

     There are a lot of theories out there about how the planets got into their orbits around the sun, right? Well, let's do some real science and see if any of these alledged theories actually qualify AS theories. Remember the definition of "Theory" above? I've listed the two most relevant definitions that appear in an online dictionary here. Notice how radically different they are! BELIEVE ME, if you are to get something truly recognized as a scientific theory, 1) is applied, not 6). I can have a limited amount of knowledge about something and form an assumption. For instance, say I'm living in 1000 BC and I see a comet. It has an erie appearance and I decide that it's a spirit visiting the earth. Now I bring this to the scientists of my day and they tell me "well it could be a ball of ice in space.. see...we observe the planets and we calculate that this comet followed a mathmatical progression in it's movements that relates to the way planets move. We think this could be almost anything so we can't give credence to YOUR particular theory. Abimabum over here thinks it was an out of control chariot. Bezimabub thinks it was another planet. Everyone has their ideas and we can't really register them all as theories in our textbooks so we need more information!"
     Ok, so are there any established theories regarding how planets got into their orbits? The famous Carl Sagan said in absolute language (as any good salesman must...) that the planets got into their orbits through collisions with other bodies! Now this is ludacrous. Because first, space within our galaxy has a space to significant mass volume ratio of something like 10^15, we know that these collisions are extremely rare. So, the chances of 8 things in 3D space coming together in near circular orbits around the sun, ALL in the same direction but with one spinning the opposite way.... are just phenomenal. Unthinkable odds. Think about all the statisically possible outcomes for 8 planets. READ the definition of THEORY above. Sagans absolute statement is just bologna. The evidence shows that some mechanism obviously correlated the planets into this incredible order with one another. I mean if that were the ONLY way it could have happened, then certainly that speculation would be 'on the table' for consideration. But as it is, it is a lame-brain speculation. And I believe Sagan said that purely for the imagery it would create in the ignorant masses who he was selling his wares to.
     So what more plausible possibilities were there? Well God could have interacted through his own creative manipulations. Certainly that would at least explain it without going with a 1:10^100th or so odds scenario :-). I mean of ALL the ways things could have wound up with 8 planets colliding with things..they wound up in this amazingly harmonious pattern all in the same plane and near circular elliptical orbits?? No my thought is "this was desgned to optimize the stability of the earth for the life that God would put here". But that's because I haven't choked the possiblity of a creator existing out of the picture. WHEN presented with implausible scenarios and one which IS plausible...take the plausible one :-)
     But other ones considered by Atheistic scientists have primarily resolved down to one termed 'Accretion in a disk'. This entails that at one point al this swirly mass existed which formed the sun's mass as the interactions afforded by a relatively high density of matter that...happened to all I guess be of low enough relative velocity to actually slow and spiral inward during this interaction (however it got into that state of affairs all..the sudden after of course an infinite time of what? :) ) and formed the planet's masses all still..swirling around in this cosmic soup.. THEN the sun reached a critical mass for ignition and the radiant energy drove away all the particles of the soup.
     Intelligent people however begin asking questions. For example we note that there is no precidence for thinking that at one time the "solar winds" were significantly stronger than they are today. So...HOW then do we see the resultant distribution of matter that we see? Basically there is no model by which ALL of this matter would come together into one planet per orbit that we see. RATHER there might be a planet and a distribution of various sizes of things that range from near planet size to tiny continuing to orbit and affect each other just as the asteroids do. SPACE IS TOO CLEAN for this model to work! Solar wind calculations show that there should be a distribution of significance all through space that ws NOT blown away by the solar wind. As anyone knows who is remotely in touch with research on solar wind vehicles, it takes an extremely small mass in proportion to the AREA of exposure TO the solar winds to attain any velocity. Of course once a craft is of such construction, this energy will move it at a constant acceleration and it will attain substantial velocities.
     Anyway the bottom line here is, we have to ask the question "WHERE IS ALL THE IMTERMEDIATE STUFF"? It's not there. God ran a cosmic vacuum cleaner and did away with it seems to be the best theory I've heard :-) So basically this question plagues the Atheist scientist to this day. Even with our incredible base of knowledge, there is still no really truly plausible scenario that has passed the test. Sagan, being the intelligent guy he was, chose the speculation that was the most difficult to absolutely prove wrong. He concluded in his mind that for the reasons stated here no doubt, that accretion in a disk was not at all plausible. Never did a density of matter exist in this part of the galaxy which would cause such a formation. He knew this, so he claimed that it must have happened through extraorinarily unlikely cosmic collisions.
     Again though if you do actual hypothetical collision scenarios, the state of the planets really doesn't make sense. Because ONCE AGAIN only on a smaller scale this time, someone...ran the cosmic vacuum cleaner and did away with all the evidence of such a collision. To this day we see significant space junk ONLY from Comet trails. We know which comets caused them. And these trails are relatively sparse which would lead one to think they are..fairly recent additions to the local environment! Not things that have been swirling around for trillions of years or something. Otherwise we would expect to see a rather more uniform distribution of space junk. But as it is we see these things called 'Meteor showers' that come only as we pass through the trails of these relatively recent visitors! Fascinating..isn't it?


How did water get on the earth?

     Many think a comet or comets collided with earth after it's formation and deposited all the water here. I believe the reason so many want to believe this, is that they resist the thought that it was here during a hot earth formation period. When the surface was hot, obviously all water would be in the atmosphere in a super condensed state and due to the pressure/temperature gradient, it is likely that an ice canopy from the interface with cold space would eventually form as the earth's surface cooled such that a calm equillibrium state was reached. (Bearing in mind the sun might not have been lit at this time but still forming itself..)      Well due to these things, every rational scientific mind would have to admit that it's certainly a strong possibility that during this equillibrium state a freeze point was reached for a fairly vast expanse of atmosphere at...pretty much the same moment! WIth all this ice forming and falling into..other ice and almost freezing molecules many of which are condensed onto the falling ice.....and the fact that as pressure increases going down...so the freezing point RAISES.... and thus a massive ice canopy could have formed at this point. And this would of course fully explain how a worldwide flood pretty much had to happen at some point if this were the case.      But let's just destroy the whole notion that comets later deposited all or even a good chunk of the water that is now on earth. Nobody can totally prove or disprove the above even if those were the circumstances. Nor is it the Christians' job to do so. We already know by the spirit's revelation to our heart what God did. We don't need to waste our lives getting scientific proof for it. But this argument against the thought that water came from Comets is decisive and useful for non-believers I believe that they may reconsider; seeing that man has an agenda to mislead them.

We'll start with the volume of the ocean. 1.37 X 10^9 KM^3

Volume of water estimated in the nucleous of a large comet like hale bopp - 34000 KM^3 (the visual 'size' of a comet is vast. Much larger than earth. However it's mostly dust and vapor around the core and nothing substantial enough to merit counting in this evaluation I believe. Soon data will be out to confirm this I'm told.)
     So...in order for...all that water to come from comets that size. hmm. I'm...getting that over 40,000 comets of this size...must have hit the earth. ...! Now the absurdity of this should be obvious. First, anytime a comet would hit it would create such a massive disruption because they move so fast...that all life on the planet would end possibly except sea life maybe. And the likelihood of deep crust penetration and then the melting of the huge ice nucleous...and/or massive shattering sending some things out of orbit and taking out part of the atmosphere at least is likely.
     I think we can safely say that...after 40,000 comets like this...there would be no atmosphere. But there's an even more significant factor at play. The size of comets does vary quite a bit. Out of 40,000 of them..the thought that a mega one would have been in there does come to mind. One that would have utterly cracked the earth up and sent splinters of it flying off into space and utterly removed the previous atmosphere from the shock wave.
     I mean, we're talking things moving 100,000 mph or thereabouts often. And there's no reason to think that would be limited if one came in from some arbitrary direction on a hyperbolic path. However, this is silly, because the likelihood of any major collision in space is so remote.
     Consider this. Statistically, I see estimates that earth should collide with an asteroid every couple thousand years. Well...small asteroids I think they mean. But anyway..comets are umpteen times more rare. So I'm thinking it's a stretch that earth would be hit by one every 20,000 years. But I can't find any actual statistical calculations on that. If it was though, hey...40,000 of them would have to deposit that water slowly over a period of on average nearly a billion years. Like I say...it's probably not even close to the reality of it though. There are TONS of asteroids wandering around. But a comet only comes in sight once in what every decade or so. THINK of all the space out there and the horrendous odds of an actual collision! The *last* one that alledgedly would have hit us...would have been right along the same odds since hey..the other 39,999 of them weren't out there not to mention the ones that crashed into other planets...so as to tilt the odds back then significantly :-).
     Basically the odds of significant masses colliding within our galaxy are caculated on the basis of a 1 to 10^15 mass to space ratio. But here the odds of a comet hitting us that is coming into our orbital area 2 per year can be roughly calculated based on the ratio of non collision points in the sphere of our orbit vs. collision points. THe earth's atmosphere/disk in worse case scenario occupised a bit over 8000 miles of diameter. Or about 50 million sq. miles of area. Meanwhile the area of the sphere of our orbit is a little over 10^17 square miles of area. So close enough considering the size of the comet nucleous to even out that bit of data :-). We are left with over a 1 to 2 billion ratio in those areas. Thus the odds are, a collision might occur around ever 1 billion years. I knew it would be a lot more than 100 X more rare than an asteroid collision :-). What do I know though?
     Ok sooo... in reality then these 40,000 collisions not only exceed the longest rational estimated lengths of earth's age....then far exceed the craziest estimates on the age of the universe. SO I guess we've taken that one far enough. I think any sane person would conclude that the water was on earth during it's formation. If the surface was hot for a sustained period of time, then MUCH of that water was in the atmosphere. Some theorize that by some method the earth came together and the water was just mixed in with everything and then pressure and radiation and so on started to result in heat in the inner depths. And the water then existed in vapor under pressure state and found it's way to the surface eventually. The flood story also mentions waters that came up from the deep. Possibly it was a combination of the collapse of a canopy and volcanic eruptions that precipitated the flood.
     Another GREAT thought arises out of this though. If all these comets had been flying all over for billions of years, there would be no meteor showers. Or just one long never ending one. The infrequency of meteor showers which are directly tied often to documented comet paths bears strong witness that the planets were conceived with the sun out of a void. And the comets and asteroids were added and as these things have moved, they have produced these relatively few trails that we hit seasonally and we can see a large increased in meteors as we pass through where a vast comet sped many years ago. Of course all these particles are in motion so we dont' go through the space one year and see meteors, then come through the next year and notice a greatly diminished number, because these comet paths are so huge and all the particles were shed off something moving perhaps 50,000mph or or more... -Bob


Why is Evolutionary development of the species a bunk theory?

(here is one of my articles on myspace.)

Michael wrote: Bob, I am still waiting for you to present your deadly argument. I am not criticizing you, but I have seen no marginally successful argument against evolution to date. Many seem great at first, but on close examination fall apart.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your response to the animal vengeance thing I showed you......

-------------I wrote--------------

I've already posted them. You must have missed it. Go to my sounddoctorin.com site and read the material in the ministry networking section on the topic.

The basic arguments are

1) The genetic code specificity and critical design of vital organs and their relation to one another.

This argument thoroughly unravels evolution all by it's lonesome :-). Because every geneticist agrees that mass mutations are impossible. This argument shows that slow, gradual changes are also impossible. Because once you slowly gradually start mutating vital organ's genetic code...which is NECESSARY for an actual species change in complex life forms.. then thousands of OTHER changes have to accompany or eventually you just wind up with a code that dictates a defective heart valve for instance and the thing dies.

We clearly see this as the 'species boundaries'. We have an overwhelming amount of information now about just where that lies genetically. If the genetic code drifts outside that in the genes that relate to vital organ design..then you get a non-viable organism or something that doesn't even form to the fetal level.

period.

2) As though we need more arguments, the current species population testifies that slow or even more rapid changes in the order of 'punctuated equilibrium' did not occur. I have a video showing a detail of this argument on youtube. But before you even watch that, let's consider a few fundamentals. When you look at a diagram that shows the hypothetical pathways of evolutionary progression as a tree, you may see one SO DETAILED that it shows variou ape/monkey species branching off a common branch with humans! NOTE THAT NO ACTUAL SPECIES is identified at the 'split point' ...rather a line is drawn. Nobody knows what goes there. Every OTHER species on the planet is way off somewhere with it's own version of that going on.

Ok. So we have no idea what anything's common ancestor is. Isn't that.. a little suspicious right off the bat? But anyway the point is, there are at least 100's of thousands or millions of slow gradual changes between whatever SHOULD be at that point of branching and the species that is at the end of the branch. Human, ape or whatever.

Tthe raw odds of millions of species having existed which are transitional between our 'common ancestor' let's say with Ape....and man.... and all not to exist today is hyper astronomical beyond belief. The norm for any species is to proliferate. Survival of the fittest is not equal to death of the less fit. Normally the less fit does..just fine. In our observation only a small percentage of species actually go extinct. Most of them proliferate. And the weighted statistical probability of THAT many things which branched and probably 'leaved' in one genetic neighborhood and just proliferated, ALL going EXTINCT and leaving ONLY THE LAST SPECIES IN EACH BRANCH ????????????????????????

This is why people who continue to hold to evolution after reading this are functionally insane. It just doesn't make a lick of sense and everyone with a firing neuron left knows it.

THink about it. If ALL of the MILLIONS of species died off with 100 percent efficiency....then what are the odds of the current species having existed for 6000 years and still be proliferating?

Essentially zero. WHAT WE OBSERVE is a horrendous odds argument therefore against this theory. This particular argument so belittles evolution it isn't even funny. I hope that people will take this knowledge and ponder the whole scenario again and again until it sinks in.

3) The fossil record is just an independent copy of 2). Not a shred of substantiated evidence that any of these millions of species ever existed. Rather we see MANY single non-proliferating mutations. WHen we find an oddball fossil therefore, the odds are unmeasurably favor of them being one of the same. WHY? Because we've seen MANY such cases..but have as of yet scientifically documented ZERO cases of the other.

Thus the question arises 'if these things we find aren't the much more common single non-proliferating mutations..THEN WHERE THE HECK ARE THEY ALL? Because again..scientifically...we observe ONLY these so there logically would be more of them.

Meanwhile we see trilobites etc. Clearly an extinct species. Nobody doubts that. WHY? Because we see what we would expect. Multiple fossils of the exact same thing.

What are the odds of a species to have existed for thousands of years but we only find ONE (1) Fossil of it? Hmm...not great. Think of our species. We find things like..Pompeii/Pompey where people were preserved in the volcanic holocaust.

What are the odds of having millions of species that proliferatred..each..for thousands of years...but not a single such instance ever found?

Zero, unless some natural process completely buries all the old fossils from our detection. However Trilobites pretty much put that to rest don't they. Thank the Lord for Trilobites :-)

4) Mass mutations are implausible for a variety of well known reasons but let me just overview them quickly. First, any process which mutates a large number of things at once in a complex molecule is probably fairly energetic. It will somewhat randomize whatever results.

WHEN YOU RANDOMIZE something so complex as to have 10 to the 3 thousand power or so combination possibilities, and only a few trillion of them represent meaningful combinations in terms of representing viable life, then you see the problem I hope :-) The 10^3000 : 10^15 even ratio....not looking so good. Even if there were a googol of possible combinations that would make life..which there aren't...but..just say there were.... it's still completely off the charts unlikely that any random arrangement is going to HIT on one of them. 1 in 10^2900 odds!!!!!!!! GET REAL.

Furthermore...it's worse than that. There has to be a compatible molecule present for replication to occur.

Furthermore..if something does result..what does it mate with?

Etc.

The problems are so overwhelming nobody in their right mind even entertains the possibility that mass mutations have ever occurred anywhere in the universe NOT TO MENTION MANY MILLIONS of times on one planet!!

See you are painted into a corner. It's a joke. You can't have it either way. Neither slow gradual changes across species lines NOR mass changes at once are possible. SURRREEE....a mass change that happened in two beings that could mate *could* hypothetically produce a new complex species. But the odds are just horrendously impossible. Meanwhile slow gradual changes simply aren't even a reality. There are no odds involved. It's simply a physical impossibility.

5) The obvious display of bias and motivation to lie in the community of those who bring forth theories like this. Again I point above to the fact that the NORMAL thing to conclude when finding a single instance different looking fossil is that it's possibly a one time non-proliferating mutation. However what do these people cry every time? "MIssing Link!"

Furthermore the way this implausible theory has been portrayed as fact in schools. This so badly discredits the whole Evolutionist cause for anyone who wants to see. The motivation is obvious. The smudging/fudging of the facts is obvious. What we have hear...is just typical humanity at it's worst.

-Bob

How would the bible exist if it were a fabrication?

(The following is a clip from a myspace group where I followed up a comment. I think this is a good concise statement for any skeptic to start with when they consider the validity of the bible's testimony. We will continue below though with an itemized evaluation of Genesis 1 where we can make reasonable statistical estimations on the likelihood of a pre-modern science fabricator being able to concoct a story like this.)

Josh wrote: No, I have posted it in a couple other groups I'm in. I can't believe people don't see the evidence. Maybe they just choose to ignore it because they don't want to have to think about facing consequences. Who knows?

--I responded===

     Yeah I find myself saying the same things over and over on the topic. I just love the 'argument from ignorance' types like the guy in a political group who claims that my relationship with Jesus is just made up..as though...anyone has a logical way of determining such a thing :-).
     But a person who is a doubter should be willing to look at just the raw statistical analysis of a how a document like the bible would EXIST if it weren't for real! Evaluating the various aspects...any criminal investigator would have to conclude

1) There is no motive to fabricate

2) There is no contradiction of testimony that would establish anything more than two people had different angles of observation! etc.

3) There is nothing that contradicts archaeological evidence or confirmed outside history.

4) The prophecies that should have come true are documented to have come true in outside history often and archeology seems to support others! None again are dis proven.

And given the 40 authors and depth of things discussed the investigator has to conclude that there is statistically no way this is a fabrication. And that's all people have to go on until they open up their heart to God. -Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------eox

How would Genesis 1 exist if it were a fabrication?

(Preface: Some do not understand that the same author obviously wrote both Genesis 1 and 2. Some people are so amazingly ignorant that they think this author would contradict themself and forget what they had said such a short time ago about the order of things. When in REALITY Genesis 2 contains no indication of Chronology re: when the animals were made for instance. It merely reminds the simple minded reader that God had made them. The simple minded reader has a MASSIVE advantage over the presumptuous reader who is wise in his/her own eyes obviously :-) ALSO note that many speculate that the 'days' are figurative days but the insertion of the "And there was evening and there was morning..the xth day" would sway me to think not. But now on to our evaluation. )

First let's go through a commentary on each verse/group of verses so as to overcome some common hurdles of confusion that the human mind seems to interject etc.
----------
1: This could be a summary of the things that are to be described in more detail. OR it could be that God actually created the heavens and earth... at this point. I believe that is what it means. THEN he goes on to describe how some of that creation developed with his interaction!

2: A scientist MUST understand that this book was written to help ignorant non-scientists for the most part.! Otherwise...they aren't much of a scientists are they? :-) In other words the audience had no technical science background so to attempt to communicate through such concepts would itself have been 'void'.

So in verse 2 we see that the earth was 'formless'...what could THIS be a reference to? I mean..the technical language...is not write. "Formless" is an understood expression that for most people it was written to would mean 'there were no mountains, no lakes, etc." "Void" meaning it had not yet come to the purpose he had designed it for no doubt.

Also DARKNESS....was upon it's surface. Well..no surprise when it was first formed right? The starts are light years away! I believe this is where God's spirit moved over the surface of the 'waters'. It doesn't say where the waters were. COuld..have been in the atmosphere! If it was a molten earth then most certainly they were right?

Ok so I believe God allowed things to develop while he hovered here and continued to do his creative work in other parts of the universe that aren't expressed possibly. But either he painted with photons..or that light that is billions of years a way...just had to get here the normal way :-). And very possibly he delayed until all that light had arrived.

3-5: Let there be light. Since this light starts the cycle of day/night, this is the sun being lit up no doubt. Could have just spoken it into being. Or the mass already could have been there and it ignited at this point in time. REMEMBER that this is being written for an earth observer to relate to. Thus if there was atmospheric unrest, they would only see LIGHT and NOT the sun per sey. DAY ONE COMPLETE.

6-8: A strong verse in support of 'canopy theory'. I totally see this and it fits from any reasonable development theory of the earth I believe because of the likely molten state driving all moisture into the atmosphere. Before the lighting of the sun an ice canopy could have developed and when the sun lit it formed a natural separation of the waters instead of a more gradual transition in the non-solar disturbed environment. SECOND DAY ends.

9-10: Dry land appears. As cooling and condensation of the dense atmosphere ocurred, there was a uniformity for some time of water covering the surface. But then as the earth started to deform under this stress, the plates formed no doubt and land appeared and oceans. Very logical progression actually. Until the water sufficiently cooled there wasn't enough thermal gradient to produce these effects no doubt. But then as things cracked and reformed and plates cracked apart hey...makes perfect sense. Imagine that!? ;-)

11-13: God begins plant life on earth. He spoke this into being eliminating the need to tear our hair out trying to figure out how DNA that requires custom molecules for translation that are generated by the DNA's interactions...hehe..and other horribly awful puzzles with obviously no answer. End of DAY THREE.

14-15: I believe the 'lights in the expanse' means just that. THe 'expanse' is something seen from an earth bound observer. HENCE there is no indication that these lights were not *already* in existance. They simply could not be DISCERNED WITHIN THE EXPANSE! It's very important not to add/subtract from the language to get a proper understanding. I've seen many conclude foolishly that this is saying that this is when these lights were actually CREATED. WRong. The light was created back there in day one.

16-19: This is obviously a recap which adds clarification. Some people who aren't real bright read this and make it as though the author couldn't recall what he'd written down a few paragraphs ago. For example it doesn't say WHEN he placed them there. It jus said that he did it. Some want to read this as a 'running chronology' when there is no grammatical indication that this is what it is. The author is free to say for example something paralell to "I built my go cart frame on the first day. I put the motor in on the second day. I built the motor from parts my dad gave me" NOW THINK. SOME peole who read this would claim "Ok he's saying he built the motor on the second day too!" WHEN IN REALITY the motor had been setting there for years; a project he completed long ago. Also note There is no real good theory about how moons get into orbits in science again. DAY FOUR complete.

20-23: Bird and sea life are created and made to abound. DAY FIVE complete.

24: God creates land lifeforms. Including man, in his image. While making cattle 'after their kind' and so on. THis could be some kind of reference to evolution EXCEPT hey..we're dealing with one day here. One day on a planet that is now rotating so that the sun doesn't bake on half of it at some reasonable rate I assume. It clarifies that God made these creatures from the earth in context. The sixth day complete, that's the end of Genesis 1.
----------

     Ok so now we start over making some statistical estimates regarding how likely it is that the things HEREIN which overlap with science would be CORRECT if a pre-modern science author *had* fabricated this stuff. Ie. Lied. Bear in mind that these odds are just based on a conceptual estimate generated from putting myself in the 'shoes' of the ancient author who knew nothing about the actual shape of the earth, the data that lay far below it's surface, the distance of the stars, sun and moon, the specific physical laws etc.
     First we look at Genesis 1 and see obviously there are no odds to be assessed here since this is a foundational statement that does not overlap with physics. Ie. it's an entirely supernatural description. We can use it in the future to look for inconsistencies but it has no odds attributed to it since it's certainly plausible that some fabricator would have thought to say such a thing eventually. Moot. Moving right along.
     Verse 2 most definitely overlaps with science. Scientific knowledge from evaluating the depths of the earth testifies that at one time the surface was molten. In such a state of course gravity would tend to draw everything to an equillibrium state of roughly spherical shape as mechanical damping from any prior oblong configuration would eventually bring things to rest near that shape and, indeed, the surface would be 'formless' as in no mountains etc. The word 'void' when viewed in context is obviously referring to the lack of the thing that the context tends to focus on; life. And indeed no life would have existed on a molten earth so...two direct hits.
     Now evaluating the odds of someone in an ancient culture getting these both right? We compare with the Hindu 'creation' story. I recall one of them has this..cosmic cobra which is portrayed as a physical entity. Bloating around in space from..their description. Ok so that's not scientifically plausible. Right off the bat. And of course a fabricator would be tempted to go 1000's of directions like this, saying that the surface of the earth had structures on it or that it was the shape of a pancake and hardened that way or on and on it goes. Meanwhile, in this category of description there are only a few things in each count that would match with what science KNOWS about this aspect now. The 'void' one isn't nearly as unlikely as the 'formless' one. The 'formless' description constitutes at least a 1 in hundreds of not thousands scenario. Let's be conservative and say 1:200 odds for that one. The 'void' is indeed vague but just the avoidance of 'nailable' fallacies at this point earns the author some credit. 1:10 at least of something stupid not being there in place of this accurate descriptor. The accumulative odds of this being said without any gankers then is 1:2000 or worse.
     Now 'let there be light'. A primative mind would be heavily HEAVILY drawn to think that light had simply always existed. However the 2nd law of thermodynamics has something to say about this. The fact that ALL processes in context in the universe are entropic leads us to the reasonable conclusion that at time t=infinity, there will be a condition called 'heat death'. This is where everything that is matter has 'run it's course' so to speak. Everything is reduced to a state where it no longer has potential energy. Infinity is a very long time :-) However by definition, if there is NO time t=0, then indeed we are AT time t=infinity right now! Time is not a 'quantity' and therefore *can* be boundless. It is merely a convention for marking the passing of events based on ones that have regular event intervals.
     This being the case, we know that all matter had a starting point! Something that does not obey the 2nd law 'spawned' all matter into being or whatever. A scientist can not speculate further without evidence outside the physical realm since the source of this eventis PROVABLY outside the physical realm according to science which upholds the 2nd law of TD as the most robust law of nature.
     And since science says there was a starting point, and since LIGHT is generated from electromagnetic disturbances in whatever the 'medium' is that we exist in, then it is logical to assume that it is very likely that light at one time indeed did NOT exist! However this thought would be UNTHINKABLY unlikely to an ancient fabricator. All they have ever seen is a world where light exists. This constitutes another high odds scenario in reality. At some point there is a temptation to diminish the odds because we begin to see the incredible consistent style of the author and we start to think 'well..the odds for *them*..' No. That isn't what this is about. This is about establishing a reasonable odds calculation for some lying fabricator who was making all this stuff up in 1400BC or thereabouts! 1:500 is the odds I would put on something like this accumulated with the fact that it also fits with all current theories about the origin of the solar system. Accretion in a disk (which is a joke, like the rest of the theories but... for sake of argument) for example asserts that this swirling mass of material came together, things began to 'condensate' in the interactions that occurred and then after these masses had accrued the sun ignited and drove all the non-connected mass away basically. I've done the calculations and this is absurd because solar winds aren't strong enough to leave the profile we see in outer space but oh well..that's the best mankind has to offer. But just THINK of all the fallacious things that a fabricator would have been tempted to put here to make a story believable to the culture it was written for! Stories about other great lights which went out eventually, etc. That's why I give this a 1:500 odds. For an uninformed liars' perspective, that would be a concervative figure.
     So now we're up to a 1:1,000,000 odds scenario or like that. Verses regarding the 'firmament'... this is so striking because it is written with such simplicity yet authority. It's difficult to estimate odds on this because some of the aspects are only speculated in science. We don't *know* from science that a canopy existed for example. But there real ODDS evaluation here stems from the fact that the testimony is internally consistent *beyond* what the scientific knowledge of the author could have provided for them! Yet the flow is vaguely linked to context so I'm convervatively giving this a 1:3 odds scenario bringing us to 1:3,000,000 accumulated.
     The appearance of dry land. As outlined in the commentary above...this should absolutely blow people away. The odds of a fabricator coming forth with a scientifically sound formation model like this....WHO WOULD EVER in that ancient time be able to think through things this clearly? And conclude that ...there was a molten surface..and therefore... water wasn't there but then when it cooled enough water began to concensate rapidly on the surface and voila all kinds of rapid surface dynamics occurred and the earth went through this violent seizure where land and seas were separated? I mean C'mon! That is nothing short of hyper-brilliant! The odds of THIS one occurring are again unthinkable I believe but let's put 1:10,000 on it conservatively just to give it a number to work with. That's so lame. It's got to be one in BILLIONS of someone not putting something stupid in for *this* parameter. That's kind of what we're looking at. So accumulated odds of 1:30 billion so far then.
     Plant life comes first. Wow. Well while this is again brilliant for someone of that age I would think, I can see how a truly brilliant person in their own observations *might* be led to this conclusion so I'm going to say the odds of them putting that vs. something really stupid here are pretty limited. Especially since I mean they know animals eat plants and they wouldn't have said that animals came before plants :-). However there are still a lot of wrong things they might have inserted here alongside and again the more right things that get said without wrong things the more likely we are looking at a truth and not a fabrication. 1:3 odds again, our default baseline for a hit without an incorrect embelishment. 1:90 billion so far.
     It's very important to read the commentary above on the section where lights begin to appear in the firmament. I think the ODDITY of how this is written is actually MASSIVE support that this is no fabrication. But it requires a non-presumptuous person of intelligence to really sort this out. The STRANGE nature of this..how by appearance the author appears to be shooting his credibilty. An ancient fabricator would certainly NOT write something of this nature. Because the ancient's reading it would not understand the reality that modern science has unveiled! That during this firmament formation there indeed would be no way to discern these 'lights'. But rather one would just see light like on a very cloudy day. The way the author sets this up is reminiscent of several other scenarios in the bible. Eg. Ezekiel's description of the sacking of Tyre by Alexander the Great. This very obscure strange sounding prophecy that winds up being fulfilled for a very utilitarian purpose! Rocks being scraped bare to form a bridge out to the Island so they could conquer them. Almost as though..the same author wrote Ezekiel's prophecies as wrote the Genesis! :-) Hint...hint....
     Anyway this thing is hard to assess odd's wise. But it remains a plausibility and what really CUTS into the odds is the fact that no kooky Sagonesque theories were inserted about how the moon's got into orbit for instance. God simply creates them and puts them there. Rather than them colliding with other bodies for instance which of course would have created a cataclysmic destruction of both bodies due to the incredible energy of such a collision in space. There would have been pieces going all over but instead we have this swept clean space except for trails of comets which are known to be associated with particular visitors :-). Anyway 1:10 for steering away from gankers AND placing forth some consitent things with modern science on these scenarios. I give this a fairly low odds extremity because I can see mechanisms of human wisdom again which could have lent themselves on this one and I don't want to be overinflating the odds at ANY turn here. 1:900 billion so far.
      And on with the creation of birds and sea creatures which again fits with scientific speculation by some. Others believe life started in the seas. However there is no absolute evidence one way or the other so this is a moot odds scenario in that aspect. However again, the author has managed to steer away from saying something idiotic that would have fingerprinted this work as a fabrication. 1:3 odds or so for an accumulation nearing 1 in 3 trillion! And folks, this is just Genesis 1.
     When we look realistically at the rest of the bible and how each books is as though it was written by a common author. THere is no conflict in the portrayal of who God is. THere is no conflict in the portrayal of man's character that has born out through history. There is no conflict with verified historical records outside of the OT. There is no conflict but rather mass substantiation Archaeologically! And..every time science and the bible overlap, there is correlation. Eg. David's claim in Psalm 102 through prophetic vision obviously, that the heavens wear out like an old garment! That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics at the microscopic level! How did he *know* that! We see clearly that the Roman Catholics thought quite the opposite thousands of years later. So..a less scientically advanced man was more scholarly than the best they could bring forth! Hmmm...even though..they were SUPPOSED to believe the bible?
     See it's all a set up. God will shame the wise. Those who are wise in their own wisdom that is. The picture is much too complicated. But those who humble themselves before God he will instruct in his wisdom. Believe you this day that you might be saved. God loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. Pray to him and receive his spirit. Find fellowship with others who love God. And may you be blessed with the eternal relationship that he created you for.