RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang
This is the show from Friday March 21st, 2014
SUMMARY:
* Forget About High-Energy Particle Physics: Instead, just sit back and enjoy today's Real Science Radio program. Hearing a 10-second clip of physicist Lawrence Krauss telling Real Science Radio that "all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang" gets Bob and Fred so worked up that they launched into a real high-energy science radio show! And check out the amazing written summary below, and share the link with friends, at rsr.org/bang!
RSR's List of Evidence that Contradicts the Big Bang
* Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies: The Big Bang predicts that when telescopes peer especially far into outer space, they should see only infant galaxies. Instead, as we've been documenting for two decades, they are repeatedly "startled" and "baffled" (per the journal Science) to see exactly what the Big Bang predicts should not exist. For many of the most distant ("youngest") galaxies look just like the Milky Way and the oldest galaxies all around us! Just in time for our 2014 RSR Big Bang program, the Carnegie Observatories: "discovered 15 [more] massive, mature galaxies located where they shouldn't be: at an average distance of 12 billion light years away from Earth." Such discoveries prove wrong Neil deGrasse Tyson claim last week that we creationists cannot not make predictions, as any glance at our RSR Predictions and our confirmed predictions shows. In 2005 a cover story for Science News stated, "Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men. That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos. Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions of years to form." Finally, in 1995, as NASA was preparing to publish their first Hubble Deep Field Image, Bob Enyart predicted (as would all biblical creationists) that NASA and the entire Big Bang community of astronomers, physicists and astrophysicists, would all be wrong, because the furthest galaxies would look just like nearby galaxies regarding apparent age. Learn more here, here, here, here, and here!
* Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB did not predict they would exist: Galaxy clusters typically have between 100 and 1,000 gravitationally bound galaxies. When astronomers began looking at the furthest galaxies, which must have been formed when the universe was young, they did not expect to find galaxies pulled together into clusters. But they did. "The surprising thing is that when we look closely at this galaxy cluster," said Raphael Gobat, lead author of an Astronomy & Astrophysics journal paper, "it doesn't look young..." The official Hubble website reports that its very old stars and galaxies, "makes the cluster a mature object, similar in mass to the Virgo galaxy cluster..." The Virgo cluster is not 10 billion years away; it's so close to us that we're in it. The Virgo cluster contains 2,000 galaxies including the Milky Way. So finding a cluster with the mass and age of the Virgo cluster, more than 10 billion light years from the earth is more than "surprising"; it is another major failure of the Big Bang model's ability to predict the nature of the universe. And even further clusters will continue to be discovered. For the Jet Propulsion Lab had just previously announced discovery of another galaxy cluster comprising "400 billion suns" at a distance of "12.6 billion light-years away from Earth."
* Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicted that gravity couldn't form them in less than a trillion years: Enormous clusters, called superclusters, contain about 90% of all galaxies and are made up of millions of galaxies. Astronomers find them shaped like filaments and bubbles and in structures like the Great Wall, and the billion-light-year-long Sloan Great Wall. Even at the alleged 13.8 billion years of age, the universe lacks 99% of the time required for gravity to pull these structures together. Thus because it would take a trillion years of work by gravity to pull together even the smaller superclusters, the "standard model" did not predict their existence. Thus if the Big Bang were true, superclusters should not exist. But they do. So to save their favored theory (and motivated by a desire to explain the cosmos apart from the Creator), theoreticians imagined a BB rescue device: dark matter.
* Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies: As Princeton's astrophysics Prof. Michael Strauss describes the data: "...tremendously distant galaxies are just as clustered as today [that is, as those that are nearby] and are arranged in the same filamentary, bubbly structures that nearby galaxies are." Thus, rescuing the Big Bang theory from the existence of unexpected distant galaxy clusters merely exposes an equal and opposite failure of the theory. If 96% of the stuff of the universe is hypothetical and unknown, but sufficient to rapidly pull together galaxy clusters from across the universe as they existed allegedly many billions of years ago, then that same extra matter should have pulled together the mass of nearby galaxies far more so than it could have done in just the early stages of the universe to the most distant galaxies. At the home of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CalTech's astronomy Prof. Charles Steidel concurs with the degree of clustering, near and far: "The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today." This enormous observation fits the predictions of young-earth creation but contradicts BB expectations.
The rest of this written summary is a draft and will be updated throughout the week...
* Spiral Galaxies missing millions of years of collisions: Major big bang predictions were falsified so strongly that Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles stated, "It's really an embarrassment." While scientists were looking for the expected evidence of hundreds of millions of years of collisions that big bang theory predicted caused the spiral galaxy bulges, University of Texas astronomy department chairman John Kormendy admitted that the pristine bulges, "were something of a shock" for they "look rather too perfect."
* Nine billion years of missing metal in a trillion stars: Indiana University led a study of fifteen galaxies that undermined rather than fulfilled a major and fundamental big bang prediction. Krauss and other theorists do not *know* but they "believe" that, as billions of years pass during star evolution, these trillion stars were supposed to be creating vast quantities of heavy metals, but instead, these stars lack nine billion years worth of metal (i.e., in astronomy speak, that means elements heavier than hydrogen and helium).
* Mission Population III stars: Big bang theory predicts that many "first generation" stars (which are referred to not as Population I, but as Population III stars), would contain only the light elements claimed to have formed in the big bang (hydrogen and helium with trace amounts of lithium) and that these Population III stars should still be plentiful. Yet even though many millions of stars have been studied and cataloged, not even one Pop. III star has been found. "Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy." -Science, Jan. 4, 2002 (see more references)
* Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity: Theory claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars, but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution throughout the Earth's crust. However, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement on air that ninety percent of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is concentrated in the continental crust! That is, that 90% is not in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but it is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. Krauss admitted that the uranium is concentrated near granite, and offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, floated toward the surface. If so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core, and Krauss doesn't explain why the uranium avoided the oceanic crust. The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite. (Further, RSR joins in the creationist prediction, which also helps to falsify Big Bang chemical evolution theory, that the Moon and Mars have little radioactivity.)
* Solar system formation theory wrong too: Exoplanet discoveries, with their masses, sizes, composition and orbital characteristics different than predicted for decades by the standard model of solar system formation, including with their retrograde orbits, highly inclined orbits and hot jupiters, have effectively falsified that model. So the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the BBC, NPR, etc., were wrong to build public confidence in such secular origins theories. The longstanding claims of solar system formation, which say that the gas giant planets orbiting close to their stars shouldn't exist, were not devised from the ground up based on the laws of physics, but rather, they were invented ad hoc to account for the particulars of our own solar system. Now that thousands of exoplanets are being discovered, the story telling will simply become, as with epicycles and levels of Darwinian selection, shall we say, more complex. The California Institute of Technology manages NASA's exoplanet database, and Caltech astronomer Mike Brown told NPR: “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong."
For today's show RSR recommends
the best astronomy science DVD ever made!
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System
* It is "Philosophy" that Claims the Universe has No Center: At rsr.org/cosmological-principle you can hear and read about physicists and astrophysicists like Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Richard Feynman stating unequivocally that the belief (which Krauss holds) that the universe has no center, which is essential to the big bang cosmology, is a philosophical claim which the evidence is unable to confirm.
* Amassing Evidence Suggests the Universe Has a Center: UPDATED: As of 2013, the most extensive observational evidence ever collected in the history of science is indicating that the universe may have a center. Yet intense philosophical bias, described as "embarrassment" by Feynman, makes it difficult for belief-driven theorists like Lawrence Krauss to objectively evaluate the evidence as presented by many secular and creationist astrophysicist and cosmologists who have documented the quantized redshift of hundreds of thousands of galaxies suggesting that galaxies exist in preferred distances and concentric shells out from the center of the universe. This data comes from many sources including the constantly updated:
- Sloan Digital Sky Survey maps (see image), and
- 1990, Nature, Large-scale distribution of galaxies at the Galactic poles
- 1997, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report
- 2002, Sandia Nat'l Labs physicist Russell Humphreys, wrote in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation, "...redshift quantization is evidence (1) against the big bang theory, and (2) for a galactocentric cosmology..."
- 2004, Cornell University's arxiv.org, Large Scale Periodicity in Redshift Distribution
- 2006, Cornell's arxiv.org, Poland's Kiecle Institute of Physics On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity
- 2008, Astrophysics and Space Science creationist John Hartnett, et al., Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis,
- 2010, University of Western Australia physics professor John Hartnett, Where are we in the universe? in Journal of Creation. Various secular physics and astrophysics journals have published Hartnett's work.
* Sun is Missing Nearly 100% of its Big-Bang-predicted Spin: The discoverer of gravity Isaac Newton rejected the nebula hypothesis that gravity could condense a gas cloud into our sun and its orbiting planets. Big bang proponents reject Newton's insight. So they must develop a secondary assumption to explain why the Sun, which has about 99% of the mass of the solar system, has less than 1% of the "spin" of the system. Thus at least apparently, the claimed evolution of our solar system would violate the law of the conservation of angular momentum, requiring yet another "rescue device" to be devised to protect the theory.
* Big Bang Marketing Rep: Lawrence Krauss has been an aggressive salesman for the philosophical worldview of atheism for so long that perhaps he has forgotten even what it means for "evidence" to support a theory. At five minutes into this Part 2 of our Krauss interview, this big bang lobbyist repeats what appears in his book on page 6, that, "all evidence supports the big bang", and in the nature of a propagandist, Krauss ups the ante by adding that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports the big bang," and to put a cherry on it, he adds: "overwhelming is an understatement."
* Additional Evidence Against the Big Bang: In 2013 and beyond, we plan to move items below from this abbreviated list, sourcing them and expounding on them slightly, and promoting them to the above list:
* Missing echo of the big bang. (Various atheists have criticized RSR for listing this, assuming that we're merely talking about the CMB, but this is a reference to the failed search to identify a difference in this "echo" from behind nearby galaxies.)
* Millions of years of missing spiral arm deformation. (Of the evidence that does not "support" the big bang, this is an example that proponents jump on first, actually claiming this as positive evidence, while it is one of the first observational contradictions of the theory that caused them to assert the existence of one of their first hypothetical entities. The more observations that contradict a theory, and the more secondary and tertiary rescue devices needed to prop it up, the more its proponents make over-the-top assertions such as: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.")
* Missing evidence to explain the order of star and galaxy formation. John Maddox, physicist and 23-year editor of the journal Nature, admits on page 48 of his book, What Remains to be Discovered, that scientists don't even know, "Which objects came first, stars or galaxies?" Thus evolutionists oversell the evidence for the big bang to the public, and neither for Earth nor for space can they answer the chicken-or-egg dilemma.
* Billions of years of missing infrared light that the BB predicted would be left over from star formation.
* Unexpected extensive fine tuning (see below) of the universe, the solar system, and Earth.
* An entire universe worth of missing antimatter. When supercolliders form matter from energy, as expected from the laws of physics, equal parts of matter and antimatter form, and they annihilate one another if they come into contact. Big Bang theorists have spent decades looking for antimatter regions of the universe with leading astronomers culminating a significant project by writing, "we conclude that a matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded" with the journal Science reporting a physicist's assessment: "The work is extremely compelling and gives me fresh pessimism" that is, on the difficulty of explaining why the universe even exists, let alone how the universe works, by way of a big bang.
* Missing uniform distribution of isotopes. The "versions" of elements on the Sun and Earth, and on the Earth and the Moon, are contrary to origins predictions.
* The water discovered on the moon runs contrary to the expectations of the theories of its formation.
* Extreme uniform temperature of universe belies lack of matter density required for gravity to form any galaxies in only 14 billion years.
* Venus has a retrograde rotation.
* Evolutionists traditionally have resisted explanations that involve catastrophism to explain our Earth's extraordinary geological features. (Remember the nautiloids.) However, in space they invoke catastrophe repeatedly, even at the magnitude of planetary collisions, in an attempt to explain materialistically inexplicable features of our solar system. For example, trying to explain the backward rotation of Venus, evolutionists resort to catastrophism. However, the big bang's nebular hypothesis is increasingly challenged with the increase of our knowledge. Challenged by the conservation of angular momentum, so far we've learned that one exoplanet actually orbits its star backwards. In our own solar system, major catastrophes are claimed per planet (as for the creation of our Moon). The rescue devices here are the extraordinarily high number of planetary collisions that result in just-so positioning and conditioning of planets to explain the particulars of our solar system and others.
* Because our solar system has planets with nearly circular orbits (especially our Earth, thankfully), evolutionists predicted that typical planetary systems would be comprised of planets with nearly circular orbits, except now much contrary data is coming in, with many exoplanets in highly eccentric orbits.
* Our Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic. So, if the standard model's formation of a solar system from a spinning nebula were true, a mechanism would have to exist to either tilt the massive sun, or shift the orbits of the planets as a group.
* Uranus should have an axis of rotation parallel to that of the Sun but some describe it as the "rolling planet" because it appears to "roll" around the sun because it has an axis nearly parallel to the ecliptic.
* The Moon's outer core is molten, which is evidence against it being billions of years old and is evidence of recent bombardment.
* Many unexpected transient events in our solar system: including short-period comets, changes on the moon's surface, rapid changes Saturn's rings, etc.
* Serious problems with the standard theories of star formation which, not unlike Darwin's over-reaching title, "On the Origin of Species" (since he began with the existence of at least one species), include that they begin with stars already having formed or in the process of formation.
* Serious problems with the standard nebular hypothesis of planet formation.
* Krauss and others claiming that Big Bang predictions were confirmed regarding the primordial distribution of elements, the temperature of the CMB, etc. have been exposed as biased exaggerators as documented at rsr.org/big-bang-predictions.
* Alleged dark matter leaves scientists in the dark about most of the matter that they believe exists. A Princeton University big bang advocate puts it this way: “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical,” Peebles admits. Thus the big bang does not explain the nature of, nor therefore the origin of, the vast majority of matter that is proposed in order to prop up the theory. Jim Peebles assessment here prohibits the use of the vast majority of the claimed matter of the universe in support of Krauss' marketing claim that, "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang."
* Alleged dark energy violates the first law. The hypothetical conjectures of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation, exist to offset the direct physics implications of astronomy observation. Yet these violate the most fundamental laws of science, such as the almost limitless creation from nothing of (dark) energy which violates the conservation of energy.
* Check back through 2014 to watch this list evolve
* Krauss Never Heard of Alleged Fine-Tuning Multiverse Solution; Then Proposes It: Cosmologist George Ellis, et al. wrote, "The idea of a multiverse -- an ensemble of universes -- has received increasing attention in cosmology... as an explanation for why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life and consciousness." Whereas Dr. Krauss denied Enyart's statement that atheists were positing multitudes of universes in order to explain apparent design, back in 1985, the consummate astronomer, British cosmologist Ed Harrison, wrote, "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Now fast forward to this year when biologist and fellow of both Cambridge University and of the Royal Society, Rupert Sheldrake, wrote, "To avoid a creator God emerging in a new guise, most leading cosmologists prefer to believe that our universe is one of a vast, and perhaps infinite, number of parallel universes..." So Enyart asserted to Krauss that atheistic physicists readily accept the notions of trillions upon trillions of universes assuming this gives them a possible explanation for the wildly unlikely finely tuned parameters (as listed below) of our universe. Krauss denied this (in Part I), emphatically, and so much so that Enyart stated, "Let me object, for the record..." And in denying that he had ever heard of the multiverse proposed solution as an answer for the fine-tuning problem, he then claimed that the multiverse is posited only because of string theory, and though he himself rejects string theory, yet he then claimed that there might indeed be an infinite number of universes. What a web we weave. Famed cosmologists John Barrow & Frank Tipler, on the back cover of their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, "Could there be other universes? How large is the range of conceivable universes that can give rise to living observers?" On page 6 they write, "we are tempted to make statements of comparative reference regarding the properties of our observable Universe with respect to the alternative universes we can imagine possessing difference values [for] their fundamental constraints. But there is only one Universe [no?]; where do we find the other possible universes against which to compare our own in order to decide how fortunate it is that all these remarkable coincidences that are necessary for our own evolution actually exist?" See more RSR multiverse excerpts from this text, by cosmologists whom Lawrence Krauss knows very well.
* Then Krauss Proposes Multiverse Solution: At 18 minutes into Part I, Krauss ends up basically agreeing with what he had been rejecting, saying, "There are many physicists who argue that the parameters of our universe are difficult to comprehend and many who predict the existence of many universes... We only exist in the universe with the parameters that allow life." This is not surprising since a half year ago professional statistician and codger William Briggs noted Krauss himself proposing multiple universes just to explain ours. On RSR, Krauss even stated that there might be infinite universes (which of course could include millions of universes wherein Lawrence was married to Hillary and elected president as Bill Krauss; millions of others wherein he was Chelsea's brother; and in all of which, atheists spend far too much time thinking about the Physics of Lost in Space). Krauss and his associates were slow to the table though on the multiverse, which was not as supposed invented by physicist Hugh Everett, but a year earlier in 1956 by DC Comics. Really.
* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe," and include the wildly unlikely combination of:
- the electron to proton ratio with a standard deviation of 1 in 10 to the 37th
- the electron to proton mass ratio
- the gravitational force constant
- the electromagnetic force constant, and
- the electromagnetic force in the right ratio to the nuclear force, etc.
So Krauss and others claimed that the Anthropic Principle answers why the extraordinarily unlikely precise values of these ratios exist, including the one in 10,000 decillion odds against us having a virtually perfect one-to-one electron-to-proton ratio. They make the philosophical argument that it is not surprising that the universe has all the necessary fine tuning for life, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In this way they deflect attention onto the observer and away from the very design of the universe that they are pretending to explain. Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking admits, while faithfully adhering to the anthropic doctrine, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded [as beautiful supernovas]" (Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 129). And in Hawking's book, The Grand Design, he quotes a famed astronomer, "[Fred] Hoyle wrote, 'I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce...'" with Hawking adding, "At the time no one knew enough nuclear physics to understand the magnitude of the serendipity that resulted in these exact physical laws" (p. 159).
* 2013 Update on a Whopping Phyiscs Coincidence: NewScientist reported about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..."
*Beware the Fine Tuning Claims of Hugh Ross: Consider the difference between studying the fine-tuning of the scientifically discernable universe as compared to the fine tuning required for some science fiction story. Bob Enyart ended his debate with famed atheist AronRa observing that a professional evolutionist is, "like a renowned Star Wars trivia buff, able to distinguish between a juvenile Wookiee and a mature Ewok, and explain from geology what froze the oceans on Hoth and how Tatooine was covered by dessert." Anyone creating a list of the fine-tuning of physics required for sci-fi (Lawrenece Krauss comes to mind is hopefully entertaining himself. When presenting fine-tuning arguments, a distinction should be made between the tuning that is necessary for the life and the reality that actually exists, as compared to the tuning needed to accommodate some incorrect theory of origins. See this discussed at rsr.org/fine-tuning#beware-ross, including topics like fine-tuning for life on earth as compared to on an imaginary planet and for actual life as compared to abiogenesis.
* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Earth include:
- Earth has a nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.02)
- the Earth-Moon relationship
- the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05)
- the just-right ozone layer
- the Earth's spin rate
- the atmospheric pressure
- the phenomenally harmonious water cycle
- the liquid water that exists because the Earth is the right distance from the Sun, etc.
- photosynthesis dependence on quantum physics as reported in the journal PNAS
- water doesn't break down because of quantum effects as New Scientist concludes, "We are used to the idea that the cosmos' physical constraints are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water's quantum forces can be added to this 'just right' list."
* Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear."
* Fine Tuned Quotes: British astrophysicist Paul Davies said, "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming." NASA astronomer John O'Keefe said, "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." Nobel prizer winner physicist Arno Penzias said, "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." See these and many similar quotes sourced.
* Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang, include:
- acclaimed astronomer Fred Hoyle, father of stellar evolution theory
- acclaimed astrophysicists Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge
- the hundreds of members of the young earth Creation Research Society
- the National Academy of Sciences which in 2003 published an alternative model for a bounded universe
- hundreds more scientists who are signing the extraordinary declaration at cosmologystatement.org.
Krauss contradicts himself within ten seconds, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also rsr.org/krauss#darwin-doubters.)
* Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the afterward, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not.
[url=http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=257]
For today's show RSR recommends
the best astronomy science DVD ever made!
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=257
Today’s Resources: Get the Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomyhttp://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=257 and Vol. II, Our Created Stars and Galaxieshttp://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=311! Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet(clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine!
* Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months):
* Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear Krauss part I and part 2) but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss.
This is the show from Friday March 21st, 2014
SUMMARY:
* Forget About High-Energy Particle Physics: Instead, just sit back and enjoy today's Real Science Radio program. Hearing a 10-second clip of physicist Lawrence Krauss telling Real Science Radio that "all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang" gets Bob and Fred so worked up that they launched into a real high-energy science radio show! And check out the amazing written summary below, and share the link with friends, at rsr.org/bang!
RSR's List of Evidence that Contradicts the Big Bang
* Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies: The Big Bang predicts that when telescopes peer especially far into outer space, they should see only infant galaxies. Instead, as we've been documenting for two decades, they are repeatedly "startled" and "baffled" (per the journal Science) to see exactly what the Big Bang predicts should not exist. For many of the most distant ("youngest") galaxies look just like the Milky Way and the oldest galaxies all around us! Just in time for our 2014 RSR Big Bang program, the Carnegie Observatories: "discovered 15 [more] massive, mature galaxies located where they shouldn't be: at an average distance of 12 billion light years away from Earth." Such discoveries prove wrong Neil deGrasse Tyson claim last week that we creationists cannot not make predictions, as any glance at our RSR Predictions and our confirmed predictions shows. In 2005 a cover story for Science News stated, "Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men. That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos. Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions of years to form." Finally, in 1995, as NASA was preparing to publish their first Hubble Deep Field Image, Bob Enyart predicted (as would all biblical creationists) that NASA and the entire Big Bang community of astronomers, physicists and astrophysicists, would all be wrong, because the furthest galaxies would look just like nearby galaxies regarding apparent age. Learn more here, here, here, here, and here!
* Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB did not predict they would exist: Galaxy clusters typically have between 100 and 1,000 gravitationally bound galaxies. When astronomers began looking at the furthest galaxies, which must have been formed when the universe was young, they did not expect to find galaxies pulled together into clusters. But they did. "The surprising thing is that when we look closely at this galaxy cluster," said Raphael Gobat, lead author of an Astronomy & Astrophysics journal paper, "it doesn't look young..." The official Hubble website reports that its very old stars and galaxies, "makes the cluster a mature object, similar in mass to the Virgo galaxy cluster..." The Virgo cluster is not 10 billion years away; it's so close to us that we're in it. The Virgo cluster contains 2,000 galaxies including the Milky Way. So finding a cluster with the mass and age of the Virgo cluster, more than 10 billion light years from the earth is more than "surprising"; it is another major failure of the Big Bang model's ability to predict the nature of the universe. And even further clusters will continue to be discovered. For the Jet Propulsion Lab had just previously announced discovery of another galaxy cluster comprising "400 billion suns" at a distance of "12.6 billion light-years away from Earth."
* Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicted that gravity couldn't form them in less than a trillion years: Enormous clusters, called superclusters, contain about 90% of all galaxies and are made up of millions of galaxies. Astronomers find them shaped like filaments and bubbles and in structures like the Great Wall, and the billion-light-year-long Sloan Great Wall. Even at the alleged 13.8 billion years of age, the universe lacks 99% of the time required for gravity to pull these structures together. Thus because it would take a trillion years of work by gravity to pull together even the smaller superclusters, the "standard model" did not predict their existence. Thus if the Big Bang were true, superclusters should not exist. But they do. So to save their favored theory (and motivated by a desire to explain the cosmos apart from the Creator), theoreticians imagined a BB rescue device: dark matter.
* Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies: As Princeton's astrophysics Prof. Michael Strauss describes the data: "...tremendously distant galaxies are just as clustered as today [that is, as those that are nearby] and are arranged in the same filamentary, bubbly structures that nearby galaxies are." Thus, rescuing the Big Bang theory from the existence of unexpected distant galaxy clusters merely exposes an equal and opposite failure of the theory. If 96% of the stuff of the universe is hypothetical and unknown, but sufficient to rapidly pull together galaxy clusters from across the universe as they existed allegedly many billions of years ago, then that same extra matter should have pulled together the mass of nearby galaxies far more so than it could have done in just the early stages of the universe to the most distant galaxies. At the home of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CalTech's astronomy Prof. Charles Steidel concurs with the degree of clustering, near and far: "The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today." This enormous observation fits the predictions of young-earth creation but contradicts BB expectations.
The rest of this written summary is a draft and will be updated throughout the week...
* Spiral Galaxies missing millions of years of collisions: Major big bang predictions were falsified so strongly that Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles stated, "It's really an embarrassment." While scientists were looking for the expected evidence of hundreds of millions of years of collisions that big bang theory predicted caused the spiral galaxy bulges, University of Texas astronomy department chairman John Kormendy admitted that the pristine bulges, "were something of a shock" for they "look rather too perfect."
* Nine billion years of missing metal in a trillion stars: Indiana University led a study of fifteen galaxies that undermined rather than fulfilled a major and fundamental big bang prediction. Krauss and other theorists do not *know* but they "believe" that, as billions of years pass during star evolution, these trillion stars were supposed to be creating vast quantities of heavy metals, but instead, these stars lack nine billion years worth of metal (i.e., in astronomy speak, that means elements heavier than hydrogen and helium).
* Mission Population III stars: Big bang theory predicts that many "first generation" stars (which are referred to not as Population I, but as Population III stars), would contain only the light elements claimed to have formed in the big bang (hydrogen and helium with trace amounts of lithium) and that these Population III stars should still be plentiful. Yet even though many millions of stars have been studied and cataloged, not even one Pop. III star has been found. "Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy." -Science, Jan. 4, 2002 (see more references)
* Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity: Theory claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars, but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution throughout the Earth's crust. However, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement on air that ninety percent of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is concentrated in the continental crust! That is, that 90% is not in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but it is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. Krauss admitted that the uranium is concentrated near granite, and offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, floated toward the surface. If so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core, and Krauss doesn't explain why the uranium avoided the oceanic crust. The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite. (Further, RSR joins in the creationist prediction, which also helps to falsify Big Bang chemical evolution theory, that the Moon and Mars have little radioactivity.)
* Solar system formation theory wrong too: Exoplanet discoveries, with their masses, sizes, composition and orbital characteristics different than predicted for decades by the standard model of solar system formation, including with their retrograde orbits, highly inclined orbits and hot jupiters, have effectively falsified that model. So the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the BBC, NPR, etc., were wrong to build public confidence in such secular origins theories. The longstanding claims of solar system formation, which say that the gas giant planets orbiting close to their stars shouldn't exist, were not devised from the ground up based on the laws of physics, but rather, they were invented ad hoc to account for the particulars of our own solar system. Now that thousands of exoplanets are being discovered, the story telling will simply become, as with epicycles and levels of Darwinian selection, shall we say, more complex. The California Institute of Technology manages NASA's exoplanet database, and Caltech astronomer Mike Brown told NPR: “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong."
For today's show RSR recommends
the best astronomy science DVD ever made!
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System
* It is "Philosophy" that Claims the Universe has No Center: At rsr.org/cosmological-principle you can hear and read about physicists and astrophysicists like Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Richard Feynman stating unequivocally that the belief (which Krauss holds) that the universe has no center, which is essential to the big bang cosmology, is a philosophical claim which the evidence is unable to confirm.
* Amassing Evidence Suggests the Universe Has a Center: UPDATED: As of 2013, the most extensive observational evidence ever collected in the history of science is indicating that the universe may have a center. Yet intense philosophical bias, described as "embarrassment" by Feynman, makes it difficult for belief-driven theorists like Lawrence Krauss to objectively evaluate the evidence as presented by many secular and creationist astrophysicist and cosmologists who have documented the quantized redshift of hundreds of thousands of galaxies suggesting that galaxies exist in preferred distances and concentric shells out from the center of the universe. This data comes from many sources including the constantly updated:
- Sloan Digital Sky Survey maps (see image), and
- 1990, Nature, Large-scale distribution of galaxies at the Galactic poles
- 1997, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report
- 2002, Sandia Nat'l Labs physicist Russell Humphreys, wrote in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation, "...redshift quantization is evidence (1) against the big bang theory, and (2) for a galactocentric cosmology..."
- 2004, Cornell University's arxiv.org, Large Scale Periodicity in Redshift Distribution
- 2006, Cornell's arxiv.org, Poland's Kiecle Institute of Physics On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity
- 2008, Astrophysics and Space Science creationist John Hartnett, et al., Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis,
- 2010, University of Western Australia physics professor John Hartnett, Where are we in the universe? in Journal of Creation. Various secular physics and astrophysics journals have published Hartnett's work.
* Sun is Missing Nearly 100% of its Big-Bang-predicted Spin: The discoverer of gravity Isaac Newton rejected the nebula hypothesis that gravity could condense a gas cloud into our sun and its orbiting planets. Big bang proponents reject Newton's insight. So they must develop a secondary assumption to explain why the Sun, which has about 99% of the mass of the solar system, has less than 1% of the "spin" of the system. Thus at least apparently, the claimed evolution of our solar system would violate the law of the conservation of angular momentum, requiring yet another "rescue device" to be devised to protect the theory.
* Big Bang Marketing Rep: Lawrence Krauss has been an aggressive salesman for the philosophical worldview of atheism for so long that perhaps he has forgotten even what it means for "evidence" to support a theory. At five minutes into this Part 2 of our Krauss interview, this big bang lobbyist repeats what appears in his book on page 6, that, "all evidence supports the big bang", and in the nature of a propagandist, Krauss ups the ante by adding that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports the big bang," and to put a cherry on it, he adds: "overwhelming is an understatement."
* Additional Evidence Against the Big Bang: In 2013 and beyond, we plan to move items below from this abbreviated list, sourcing them and expounding on them slightly, and promoting them to the above list:
* Missing echo of the big bang. (Various atheists have criticized RSR for listing this, assuming that we're merely talking about the CMB, but this is a reference to the failed search to identify a difference in this "echo" from behind nearby galaxies.)
* Millions of years of missing spiral arm deformation. (Of the evidence that does not "support" the big bang, this is an example that proponents jump on first, actually claiming this as positive evidence, while it is one of the first observational contradictions of the theory that caused them to assert the existence of one of their first hypothetical entities. The more observations that contradict a theory, and the more secondary and tertiary rescue devices needed to prop it up, the more its proponents make over-the-top assertions such as: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.")
* Missing evidence to explain the order of star and galaxy formation. John Maddox, physicist and 23-year editor of the journal Nature, admits on page 48 of his book, What Remains to be Discovered, that scientists don't even know, "Which objects came first, stars or galaxies?" Thus evolutionists oversell the evidence for the big bang to the public, and neither for Earth nor for space can they answer the chicken-or-egg dilemma.
* Billions of years of missing infrared light that the BB predicted would be left over from star formation.
* Unexpected extensive fine tuning (see below) of the universe, the solar system, and Earth.
* An entire universe worth of missing antimatter. When supercolliders form matter from energy, as expected from the laws of physics, equal parts of matter and antimatter form, and they annihilate one another if they come into contact. Big Bang theorists have spent decades looking for antimatter regions of the universe with leading astronomers culminating a significant project by writing, "we conclude that a matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded" with the journal Science reporting a physicist's assessment: "The work is extremely compelling and gives me fresh pessimism" that is, on the difficulty of explaining why the universe even exists, let alone how the universe works, by way of a big bang.
* Missing uniform distribution of isotopes. The "versions" of elements on the Sun and Earth, and on the Earth and the Moon, are contrary to origins predictions.
* The water discovered on the moon runs contrary to the expectations of the theories of its formation.
* Extreme uniform temperature of universe belies lack of matter density required for gravity to form any galaxies in only 14 billion years.
* Venus has a retrograde rotation.
* Evolutionists traditionally have resisted explanations that involve catastrophism to explain our Earth's extraordinary geological features. (Remember the nautiloids.) However, in space they invoke catastrophe repeatedly, even at the magnitude of planetary collisions, in an attempt to explain materialistically inexplicable features of our solar system. For example, trying to explain the backward rotation of Venus, evolutionists resort to catastrophism. However, the big bang's nebular hypothesis is increasingly challenged with the increase of our knowledge. Challenged by the conservation of angular momentum, so far we've learned that one exoplanet actually orbits its star backwards. In our own solar system, major catastrophes are claimed per planet (as for the creation of our Moon). The rescue devices here are the extraordinarily high number of planetary collisions that result in just-so positioning and conditioning of planets to explain the particulars of our solar system and others.
* Because our solar system has planets with nearly circular orbits (especially our Earth, thankfully), evolutionists predicted that typical planetary systems would be comprised of planets with nearly circular orbits, except now much contrary data is coming in, with many exoplanets in highly eccentric orbits.
* Our Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic. So, if the standard model's formation of a solar system from a spinning nebula were true, a mechanism would have to exist to either tilt the massive sun, or shift the orbits of the planets as a group.
* Uranus should have an axis of rotation parallel to that of the Sun but some describe it as the "rolling planet" because it appears to "roll" around the sun because it has an axis nearly parallel to the ecliptic.
* The Moon's outer core is molten, which is evidence against it being billions of years old and is evidence of recent bombardment.
* Many unexpected transient events in our solar system: including short-period comets, changes on the moon's surface, rapid changes Saturn's rings, etc.
* Serious problems with the standard theories of star formation which, not unlike Darwin's over-reaching title, "On the Origin of Species" (since he began with the existence of at least one species), include that they begin with stars already having formed or in the process of formation.
* Serious problems with the standard nebular hypothesis of planet formation.
* Krauss and others claiming that Big Bang predictions were confirmed regarding the primordial distribution of elements, the temperature of the CMB, etc. have been exposed as biased exaggerators as documented at rsr.org/big-bang-predictions.
* Alleged dark matter leaves scientists in the dark about most of the matter that they believe exists. A Princeton University big bang advocate puts it this way: “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical,” Peebles admits. Thus the big bang does not explain the nature of, nor therefore the origin of, the vast majority of matter that is proposed in order to prop up the theory. Jim Peebles assessment here prohibits the use of the vast majority of the claimed matter of the universe in support of Krauss' marketing claim that, "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang."
* Alleged dark energy violates the first law. The hypothetical conjectures of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation, exist to offset the direct physics implications of astronomy observation. Yet these violate the most fundamental laws of science, such as the almost limitless creation from nothing of (dark) energy which violates the conservation of energy.
* Check back through 2014 to watch this list evolve
* Krauss Never Heard of Alleged Fine-Tuning Multiverse Solution; Then Proposes It: Cosmologist George Ellis, et al. wrote, "The idea of a multiverse -- an ensemble of universes -- has received increasing attention in cosmology... as an explanation for why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life and consciousness." Whereas Dr. Krauss denied Enyart's statement that atheists were positing multitudes of universes in order to explain apparent design, back in 1985, the consummate astronomer, British cosmologist Ed Harrison, wrote, "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Now fast forward to this year when biologist and fellow of both Cambridge University and of the Royal Society, Rupert Sheldrake, wrote, "To avoid a creator God emerging in a new guise, most leading cosmologists prefer to believe that our universe is one of a vast, and perhaps infinite, number of parallel universes..." So Enyart asserted to Krauss that atheistic physicists readily accept the notions of trillions upon trillions of universes assuming this gives them a possible explanation for the wildly unlikely finely tuned parameters (as listed below) of our universe. Krauss denied this (in Part I), emphatically, and so much so that Enyart stated, "Let me object, for the record..." And in denying that he had ever heard of the multiverse proposed solution as an answer for the fine-tuning problem, he then claimed that the multiverse is posited only because of string theory, and though he himself rejects string theory, yet he then claimed that there might indeed be an infinite number of universes. What a web we weave. Famed cosmologists John Barrow & Frank Tipler, on the back cover of their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, "Could there be other universes? How large is the range of conceivable universes that can give rise to living observers?" On page 6 they write, "we are tempted to make statements of comparative reference regarding the properties of our observable Universe with respect to the alternative universes we can imagine possessing difference values [for] their fundamental constraints. But there is only one Universe [no?]; where do we find the other possible universes against which to compare our own in order to decide how fortunate it is that all these remarkable coincidences that are necessary for our own evolution actually exist?" See more RSR multiverse excerpts from this text, by cosmologists whom Lawrence Krauss knows very well.
* Then Krauss Proposes Multiverse Solution: At 18 minutes into Part I, Krauss ends up basically agreeing with what he had been rejecting, saying, "There are many physicists who argue that the parameters of our universe are difficult to comprehend and many who predict the existence of many universes... We only exist in the universe with the parameters that allow life." This is not surprising since a half year ago professional statistician and codger William Briggs noted Krauss himself proposing multiple universes just to explain ours. On RSR, Krauss even stated that there might be infinite universes (which of course could include millions of universes wherein Lawrence was married to Hillary and elected president as Bill Krauss; millions of others wherein he was Chelsea's brother; and in all of which, atheists spend far too much time thinking about the Physics of Lost in Space). Krauss and his associates were slow to the table though on the multiverse, which was not as supposed invented by physicist Hugh Everett, but a year earlier in 1956 by DC Comics. Really.
* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe," and include the wildly unlikely combination of:
- the electron to proton ratio with a standard deviation of 1 in 10 to the 37th
- the electron to proton mass ratio
- the gravitational force constant
- the electromagnetic force constant, and
- the electromagnetic force in the right ratio to the nuclear force, etc.
So Krauss and others claimed that the Anthropic Principle answers why the extraordinarily unlikely precise values of these ratios exist, including the one in 10,000 decillion odds against us having a virtually perfect one-to-one electron-to-proton ratio. They make the philosophical argument that it is not surprising that the universe has all the necessary fine tuning for life, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In this way they deflect attention onto the observer and away from the very design of the universe that they are pretending to explain. Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking admits, while faithfully adhering to the anthropic doctrine, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded [as beautiful supernovas]" (Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 129). And in Hawking's book, The Grand Design, he quotes a famed astronomer, "[Fred] Hoyle wrote, 'I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce...'" with Hawking adding, "At the time no one knew enough nuclear physics to understand the magnitude of the serendipity that resulted in these exact physical laws" (p. 159).
* 2013 Update on a Whopping Phyiscs Coincidence: NewScientist reported about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..."
Spoiler
*Beware the Fine Tuning Claims of Hugh Ross: Consider the difference between studying the fine-tuning of the scientifically discernable universe as compared to the fine tuning required for some science fiction story. Bob Enyart ended his debate with famed atheist AronRa observing that a professional evolutionist is, "like a renowned Star Wars trivia buff, able to distinguish between a juvenile Wookiee and a mature Ewok, and explain from geology what froze the oceans on Hoth and how Tatooine was covered by dessert." Anyone creating a list of the fine-tuning of physics required for sci-fi (Lawrenece Krauss comes to mind
is hopefully entertaining himself. When presenting fine-tuning arguments, a distinction should be made between the tuning that is necessary for the life and the reality that actually exists, as compared to the tuning needed to accommodate some incorrect theory of origins. See this discussed at rsr.org/fine-tuning#beware-ross, including topics like fine-tuning for life on earth as compared to on an imaginary planet and for actual life as compared to abiogenesis.* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Earth include:
- Earth has a nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.02)
- the Earth-Moon relationship
- the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05)
- the just-right ozone layer
- the Earth's spin rate
- the atmospheric pressure
- the phenomenally harmonious water cycle
- the liquid water that exists because the Earth is the right distance from the Sun, etc.
- photosynthesis dependence on quantum physics as reported in the journal PNAS
- water doesn't break down because of quantum effects as New Scientist concludes, "We are used to the idea that the cosmos' physical constraints are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water's quantum forces can be added to this 'just right' list."
* Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear."
* Fine Tuned Quotes: British astrophysicist Paul Davies said, "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming." NASA astronomer John O'Keefe said, "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." Nobel prizer winner physicist Arno Penzias said, "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." See these and many similar quotes sourced.
* Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang, include:
- acclaimed astronomer Fred Hoyle, father of stellar evolution theory
- acclaimed astrophysicists Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge
- the hundreds of members of the young earth Creation Research Society
- the National Academy of Sciences which in 2003 published an alternative model for a bounded universe
- hundreds more scientists who are signing the extraordinary declaration at cosmologystatement.org.
Krauss contradicts himself within ten seconds, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also rsr.org/krauss#darwin-doubters.)
* Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the afterward, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not.
[url=http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=257]
For today's show RSR recommends
the best astronomy science DVD ever made!
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=257
Today’s Resources: Get the Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomyhttp://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=257 and Vol. II, Our Created Stars and Galaxieshttp://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=311! Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet(clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine!
* Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months):
* Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear Krauss part I and part 2) but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss.
Last edited by a moderator:
