Lyle said:
The Big Bang Theory
The traditional theory that two atoms/ matter/ electrons collided together and caused a enormous explosion. Due to this explosion dust was created that the began to settle around the universe. It was spun into action with the right chemistry to create the sun, then dust collected in balls and got caught within the gravitational pull of the sun and became what we know of as our planets... This is going of the grounds, of the creation of our solar system under such a theory alone. Apart, that is, form the creation of the rest of the universe... This is known as the Big Bang theory, brought about by Charles Darwin, who invented the rest of the theory of evolution.
Sorry, but Big Bang was first proposed over 100 years after
Origin was published and 80 years after Darwin died!
BB states that the universe started as an infinitely small hot point in which was all the matter/energy of the universe. There was no "explosion" in the traditional sense but rather the spacetime of the universe expanded.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
This may seem as a nice way to write off any form of creation, for it just all exploded into place. But just looking first at the two particles. According to this theory they floated around in space for billions and billions of years.. Or the void we know as space. Yet if you look at the laws of physics, this cannot be so. For the energy of these two particles would have worn out many eons before they ever met,
Since the theory never had "two particles" in it to begin with, the refutation doesn't address the theory of BB.
The nature of an explosion is of such that it never creates life. Never has something exploded into something completely different. And looking even into the blasts of the atomic bombs. Explosions always cause degeneration, never generation, or life.
Since the BB was not an explosion to begin with, this refutation is also irrelevant. The origin of life is not connected directly to BB to begin with. It is due to chemistry.
Cycle of the Universe
This title sounds as though it would make a good horror movie, or some sci-fi flick. Yet let's look at it this way. Obviously this would state that the universe has had no beginning, but has kept renewing itself through all the ages of eternity. With what would it renew itself? For the laws of science say that natural systems left to themselves decay and grow old. Yet there had to have been some kind of renewing source, or stars would have burnt themselves out.
The cyclic universe was originally proposed as gravity overcoming the expansion and the universe collapsing to a "Big Crunch" which would then expand again. Yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does forbid thes Bangs and Crunch's from proceeding indefinitely.
However, there is a new theory called ekpyrotic that is a variation on this. You can read about it here:
1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001. www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515/189
2. Turok on ekpyrotic http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/turok2/
Earth
Ok let's say that the explosion under either theory was able to work. And hung in space you had the fresh planet earth. Though we could stop here for just a minute and point something out. The sun is gases and therefore burs itself away, as does any star. it has been recorded that the sun loses about five feet every hour. Well judging the distance between the earth and the sun, and factor in time. You would have the sun much larger then it is now, and to the point that the earth would be engulfed in that inferno.. therefore causing a major riff in that theory....
The "shrinking sun" of Barnes has been thoroughly refuted. The sun shrinks and explands in size in
cycle based upon the fusion reactions going on within the sun.
Which is something I cannot answer, for I have never heard an evolutionist speak about how plant life form.
It turns out that protocells formed by polymerization of amino acids to proteins and then the addition of water are also photosynthetic! Photosynthesis is one of the inherent reactions in them. Thus, plants were there from the beginning.
Bahn PR, Fox SW. Models for protocellular photophosphorylation. Biosystems. 1981;14(1):3-14.
Masinovsky Z, Lozovaya GI, Sivash AA, Drasner M. Porphyrin-proteinoid complexes as models of prebiotic photosensitizers. Biosystems 1989;22(4):305-10.
Masinovsky Z, Lozovaya GI, Sivash AA. Some aspects of the early evolution of photosynthesis. Adv Space Res 1992;12(4):199-205.
The Creatures
Men have seemingly come to an agreement on this matter that, in the dawning days of the world, there was a great pool of slime. Where this slime comes from they will not say. One theory says a particle fell into this slime and a creature came out, another says, that these fishy creatures evolved and then came out as this walking fish creature. Another still says (most widely held) that all life developed from a single-celled organism that evolved. Well for that single-cell organism would be made up of hundreds, in not thousands of proteins. And science has made the estimation that the probability of one protein evolving is. 1 to the 47,000,000 power (something along those lines).
The real theory is that all life developed from a single-celled organism. This is simply common ancestry.
The initial proteins didn't "evolve". They formed by chemistry. And they are frightenly easy to form. In fact, it is easy to make life. You can do so in your kitchen.
Start here and we can discuss this in as much detail as you would like:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
Yet this little single-celled creature would stay a single-celled creature, for it would see no need, nor have any blueprint to change into anything else. That is only on the grounds that it evolved a brain, or a sense of logic.
Natural selection doesn't depend on a brain. That is the whole problem creationists have with natural selection. The
individual doesn't decide anything. Instead, the process of natural selection decides how evolution proceeds. The individual is either lucky enough or unlucky enough to have a favorable design. Nothing to do with the individual at all.
The Dinosaurs
Let's say creatures made it far enough to the dinosaurs... Well what happened to them. There are several theories. The main one you'll read is that a meteor hint the earth and created a dust storm. Wouldn't we see the effects of said meteor today? They say the crater in Flagstaff, Arizona was probably about the size of a house. A rock the size of a house landing in the ocean is said to have an extreme effect on the world, though one has not. If it was enough to kill all the dinosaurs.. Then where is the marking? And why did only the dinosaurs die?
The most recent Scientific American has a discussion of the effects of the meteor collision that caused the dinos to go extinct. And yes, we do see the effects today. Including the iridium layer all over the world at the KT boundary.
Now explain this? If the Bible is all false, and there was no flood, then why is the ark on Mt. Ararat?
There isn't. It's all a fraud. The "Ark" has been spotted at
at least 3 different locations on Ararat. How is that possible?