Insurmountable Steps Of Origins For Scientists
Posted: Monday, January 18, 2010
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
I always feel obligated to make somewhat of a disclaimer before I produce an article such as this. First, I do not ridicule science (the observation, identification, description, experimentalinvestigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena). But I happily oppose and deny many of the conclusions arrived at by pseudo scientists. I detest and protest their using their respected positions to demand that their conclusions are correct. To gain a Ph.D. in astrology, paleontology, archaeology, etc., does not mean that one is necessarily brilliant, ethical, moral, or even has any common sense. Yet most of them feel they are in a category much higher than those with doctorates in medicine, education, business, psychology, or such. Not so. When anything is proven as fact, I accept it.
Origins: There is considerable difference in "origin" and "extension". These scientists have no clue whatsoever as to how ANYTHING had its actual origin. They reject any consideration of anything supernatural, then turn around and give the most far out description of what MIGHT have happened and then they go off into fantasy land and make up ideas (nothing worthy of being called a theory or hypothesis).
(1) We must have an answer as to why ANYTHING is here. Even totally empty space that could have given rise to the joke of a Big Bang. Why was space here, even without a single molecule? That is one of the biggies that they do not want to discuss. They tire of having to say, "We don't know".
(2) Since we know definitely that we are here now, space is here, and everything else, is here. So even though we know space was here, how did totally empty space start without anything in it? But what wasn't, still was drawn together by no force which wasn't here, into such a drastically compact miniscule source that it exploded and created all the matter we now have existing, from nothing. That is a natural occurrence? And they cannot believe in a supernatural power?
(3) Let's go along with them a few steps so we can enumerate the eerie things that would have had to occur to get where we are. When the earth was assembled after the "nothing" exploded, scientists are at odds as to how any life could have formed, knowing full well that amino acids and sugars could not exist with an atmosphere containing oxygen as it has now. These things become carbon dioxide (CO2) in the presence of oxygen. So O.K., they decided the early atmosphere was not part oxygen as now. But, without oxygen, you have no ozone layer and so the ultraviolet rays would destroy any organic molecules even if they did form. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where that leaves the origin of life. With oxygen, no life could have started, without oxygen, no life could have started. There is evidence in rocks which shows oxidation of ferrous iron in rocks as far back as can be determined.
(4) In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment which was hailed as a great breakthrough towards determining how life began. They were able to synthesize organic compounds (amino acids) from inorganic materials. So, they learned what it takes to convert inorganic substances into amino acids. This is like discovering vitamin C. They only discovered what has already been here and were able to synthesize it. But, we have to revert back to the facts contained in number (3), above. They used water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. No oxygen. Oxygen would have converted these amino acids into carbon dioxide and water. Not only that, they used a cold trap to isolate the reaction products. Where, or how, could a trap have been available in primordial soup? These sorts of experiments are equal to their taking a female ovum fertilized by a male sperm and they have discovered how to build babies.
(5) Age of an inhabitable earth: An article in Physics Today, September 1979, the following quote says:
"By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."- *"Sun is Shrinking,"
From this information it can be shown that as little as 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been approximately twice it's current size rendering life on our planet completely impossible. Even 50,000 years ago, our oceans would have boiled under the immense heat. So much for the dating methods now used by those who will not accept anything except their own suppositions.
http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm
In 1968, it was discovered that the sun is emitting very few neutrinos. This fact alone shows that the sun is quite young. If it had been in existence for a few billions of years, it would already be diminished, but if still here, it would be emitting very large amounts of neutrinos.
(6) Scientists have not yet determined where or how comets were formed. However, they have discovered that they are constantly disintegrating. They are formed of bits of rock and debris which are held together by frozen gases and water. And each of their cycles around the sun causes some water to melt and some gases to evaporate, losing some of the solids in the process which are dispersed by gravitational force from various sources. Some actually smash into the earth and many also are pulled into the sun itself.
Their tails are materials which are melting and being driven away from the comet itself by solar energy. There are many such comets circling the sun and all the "short-term" comets are believed to have a life of no more than 10,000 years, yet there are numerous such ones in existence, with no known source for their recent origin.
There are many more very similar factors which make the idea of the universe being billions of years old a mute subject. But if you want to hear fantasies by the dozen, simply confront the "highest intellectuals" in the Ph.D. group with these. The most intelligent answer they can give is, "We don't know." Embarrassing.
This Article has been viewed 241 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (0 total)No comments yet.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.