Carbon Dating

Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5,730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5,730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only 1⁄4 of the original C-14. It goes from 1⁄2 to 1⁄4 to 1⁄8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half-lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today is about .0000765%. It is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO₂ and animals eat the plants.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. To illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO₂). Plants breathe CO₂ and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies, it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon 14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half-life) and so on.

The conclusion by many scientists and others who are aware of this information is that radiometric dating methods are nothing more than guesses based on highly speculative theories rather than on facts.

The Assumptions of Carbon Dating

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. These are, obviously, the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, 7 inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit, we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assume an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column, the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800s over a century before there were any radio- metric dating methods. “Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”1 Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object’s supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.2

The two assumptions that plague C-14 dating were discussed by Sylvia Baker 10 with regard to why “dates” of more than 6,000 years are often obtained by this method.

“Many … objections cast doubt on the reliability of this method.  We shall consider just two of them.

  1. The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere — that it is being broken down at thesame rate at which it is being produced.  However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old…”
  2. It is also true that cosmic rays would have been deflected away from the earth most effectively by the earth’smagnetic field if, … (it) was much stronger in the past.  With fewer cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, there would have been less production of carbon-14 then than now.

She then adds that there is thus … “no really reliable method of dating fossils  10

Carbon dating was not invented until 1949. When the schools started to teach that the earth is billions of years old, back in 1830, the reasoning was not because of carbon dating. Carbon dating had not even been thought of yet. So why were they teaching that the earth was billions of years old back in the 1800’s? Billions of years are needed to make the evolution theory look good. Without billions of years to hide in, the theory looks absolutely ridiculous.

The geologic column is where it all started. The earth was divided up into layers. Each layer was assigned a name, an age, and an index fossil. The ages were chosen without any scientific reasoning: they were picked out of the clear blue sky! Now any dating technique that comes along, like carbon dating, has to match the geologic column: or it is rejected. This is only because the geologic column has been taught for so long now and is assumed to be true. Just because something has been taught for a long time does not make it true. However, this is the logic most scientists have. They might have to test a sample 5 or 6 times until they get the age that they want. How would you know any of the dates given are right if you are getting a different one every time?

“Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. [i]” They do not date fossils by carbon dating. Fossils are dated by their geological position. And as we mentioned earlier the dates on the geologic column were chosen out of the clear blue sky with no scientific basis. So their entire dating method for dating rocks and fossils is based off of circular reasoning.

The earth’s atmosphere is about 100 miles thick. The atmosphere has very distinctive layers to it. The earth’s atmosphere contains: 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .06% carbon dioxide, and .0000765% radioactive carbon. This radioactive carbon 14 is different from regular carbon. It is produced by radiation striking the atmosphere. In essence, sunlight strikes the atmosphere, slaps the nitrogen around, and turns it into carbon 14. So it all starts by the sunlight striking the atmosphere. About 21 pounds of carbon 14 is produced every year; and that is spread out all over the world.

If you look at a periodic table you will notice that Carbon and Nitrogen are right next to each other. Nitrogen has an atomic weight of 14 and Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. If the sunlight slaps the nitrogen around, like talked about earlier, it will knock a few things off of it and it becomes Carbon 14. It still weighs as much as nitrogen, but it is now considered carbon. It is called radioactive because it is unstable and will eventually break apart. On average half of it will break down every 5,730 years.

While it is Carbon 14 it is floating around in the atmosphere and latches onto oxygen becoming carbon dioxide. During photosynthesis plants breathe in carbon dioxide and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat plants and make it part of their bodies as well. This is how Carbon 14 gets into the living world. It gets produced in the atmosphere from the sun, the plants breathe it in, and the animals eat the plants. We have all either eaten plants or eaten animals that have eaten plants. The plants are breathing in this carbon dioxide and some of the carbon is radioactive. If the atmosphere contains .0000765% radioactive carbon, it is assumed that the plants also have .0000765% radioactive carbon as well. So, you probably have .0000765% carbon 14 in you because you have been eating these plants or eating the animals that have eaten the plants.

When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in carbon 14 and whatever it had starts to decay. It was decaying while it was alive, but now there is nothing coming in to replace it. So what they do is compare the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil to the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. If the fossil only contains half as much carbon 14 as the atmosphere, it is assumed to have been dead for one half-life, or 5,730 years. While it was alive it should have had .0000765% carbon 14. If a fossil only has .00003825% of carbon 14 it has been dead for one half-life. In theory the amount of carbon 14 never goes to zero. However, for practical purposes we cannot measure passed a certain amount. There should be no measurable carbon 14 after about 40,000 – 50,000 years.

“With their short 5,730 year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980’s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. [ii]”

Now think for a minute of what this means. The textbooks say that coal formed 250 million years ago. However, when coal is tested it still has carbon 14. How is that possible? If all of the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared at a maximum of 250,000 years, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal? Obviously it is not 250 million years old. Also diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them. So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds? Again it is obvious that they are not millions of years old.

The carbon dating assumptions need to be pointed out. The earth’s atmosphere is gaining 21 pounds of carbon 14 every year. It is also losing carbon 14 through decay. The question is how long would it take the atmosphere to reach a stage called equilibrium? The people who invented carbon 14 dating in the 1940’s did a lot of studies on this matter. They wanted to figure out how long it would take the atmosphere to reach a point where the construction rate and the destruction rate of carbon 14 was the same. They determined that it would take about 30,000 years to reach this equilibrium state. They made two bad assumptions after they came up with this calculation. They assumed that the earth was millions of years old and then assumed that they could ignore the equilibrium problem. It has been discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. “Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying. [iii]”

Now think about that for a minute. If radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30,000 years old. It also means that you cannot carbon date anything! The reason is because you would have to know when the fossil was alive to know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at that time. It simply does not work.

If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon 14 can be measured and the rate of decay can be determined. However, that is all that can be determined. It is impossible to know how much carbon 14 was in it at death and it is impossible to know if carbon 14 has always decayed at the same rate.

If the earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice, that would have blocked out a lot of the radiation from the sun. This would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming. Animals that lived before the flood would have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with. There may have been none at all, but the amount would certainly be less than what we have today.

If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it. [iv]” So does this mean that they simply choose any numbers that they want? That is exactly correct. If the number doesn’t fit what they expected, they throw the number out.

Here are some things to consider about carbon dating. When something of known age is dated: it doesn’t work. When something of unknown age is dated: carbon dating is assumed to work. That is not science!

Footnotes:

[i] O’Rourke, J. E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
[ii] www.ICR.org
[iii] R.E. Taylor et al., “Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,” American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140
[iv] T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p. 35

The Wild Dates of Carbon Dating

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

  • Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. 3
  • Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old. 4
  • A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. 5
  • “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” 6
  • “Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”7
  • Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.8
  • Rocks formed in the Mount St. Helens volcano eruption in 1980 were dated from 350,000 to 2.8 million years old.
  • Rocks known to be formed in the 1950’s and 1960’s were dated to 2.4 and 3.5 million years old respectively.

Source:

Big Bang Theory

A theory of the creation of the universe that theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together, and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location, or from which it can be deduced that an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place. H. Lipson in his book A Physicist Looks at Evolution says “… evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

This story of big bang origins is entirely fiction, but sadly, many people claim to believe the model. It is particularly distressing that many professing Christians have been taken in by the big bang, perhaps without realizing its atheistic underpinnings. They have chosen to reinterpret the plain teachings of Scripture in an attempt to make it mesh with secular beliefs about origins.

There are several reasons why we cannot just add the big bang to the Bible. Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins. When first proposed, it was an attempt to explain how the universe could have been created without God. Really, it is an alternative to the Bible, so it makes no sense to try to “add” it to the Bible. Let us examine some of the profound differences between the Bible and the secular big-bang view of origins.

The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). It is clear from the context in Genesis that these were days in the ordinary sense (i.e., 24-hour days) since they are bounded by evening and morning and occur in an ordered list (second day, third day, etc.). Conversely, the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years.

The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun. However, the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise; the secular model teaches it was created as a molten blob. The big bang and the Bible certainly do not agree about the past.

Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.” But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching. (source)

Here are a number of reasons why the Big Bang theory not only is obviously incorrect, but totally impossible. It stands In clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense:

FROM NOTHING TO EVERYTHING—By far the majority of evolutionary scientists say that matter and energy began with a Big Bang. We are told that back in the beginning, there was nothing; absolutely nothing anywhere in the entire universe. Then the nothing exploded! That is how evolutionists say everything began. When all this emptiness exploded, it traveled outward and condensed into hydrogen and helium. A total vacuum, they tell us, had become something! Additional explosions are said to have later invented all the 92 natural elements.

SCIENCE FICTION—*George Lemaitre, a Belgium Jesuit, struck on the basic idea in 1927, and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang model in 1948-1949. But it was *Gamow, a well-known  Research scientist and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and popularized it after that. Gamow dubbed it the “Big Bang.” Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists. Because Gamow was also a part-time science-fiction writer, he enjoyed writing about impossible things, like green men traveling through deep space in rockets, zapping one another with ray guns. So when it came to explaining the “Big Bang” theory to fellow scientists, he used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the idea.

Illustrating his points with these intriguing little cartoons, he caught the attention of young scientists. Because of Gamow, the Big Bang hypothesis is very widely accepted in the scientific community today, but the BBC radio host, Fred Hoyle, is often credited with coining the phrase “Big Bang”  in his 1950 BBC radio series, The Nature of the Universe, where Hoyle mockingly called this idea the ‘big bang,’ considering it preposterous. Yet the theory—and the derisive term—have become mainstream, not only in astronomy but in society as well. – Clayton, J., excerpt from The Source, August 22, 2001.

Hoyle, even though an atheist and humanist, readily saw through the fallacious assumptions behind the ‘big bang’ theory. In 1994 he wrote, ‘Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction.’ Hoyle, F., Home Is Where the Wind Blows, University Science Books, Mill Valley, California, 414, 1994, as reported in The Skeptic, 16(1):52

Here is a closer look at how many of the scientists imagine that this explosion took place.

WHEN NOTHING GETS TOGETHER—At first, the universe was totally empty with nothing in it. We are told that this empty space gradually began crowding together.

Scientists are not sure why nothing should want to come together, much less what pushed it there (especially since everything else in the universe was already supposed to be empty). But in some strange manner, unexplainable by the laws of physics, it did it anyway. Push, push, push; the void grew denser as more shoved its way in. Emptiness was packed in so tight that it was an aching void! Any more would have filled it less and less. (Which does sound a little odd, doesn’t it?)

And then it happened! Suddenly the emptiness exploded! And that was the Big Bang.

*Gamow described it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space—and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature in excess of 10″ degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Yes, air gets hot, but air is matter, not an absence of it.) Where did this “superdense core” come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of “the big squeeze,” when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing, “ylem” (pronounced “ee-lum”). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!

Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!

LAWS APPEAR—After the Big Bang occurred—the law of gravity is supposed to have invented itself, which is quite a thought. Soon the complete formulas of other laws began inventing themselves.

“The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed . . Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent.” —*WH. McCrea, “Cosmology after Half a Century,” Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

Gamow estimates that gravity broke free 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang—or a decimal point followed by 42 zeros and a 1.

GAS GETS INTO CLUMPS—At some point after the explosion (theories vary as to when) as temperatures cooled, it is theorized that the nothingness magically turned itself into hydrogen! Then, at some point immediately or thereafter (opinions vary), some of the hydrogen changed into helium.

Both hydrogen and helium are gases. We are told that the gas spread outward throughout the universe for about ten billion years, and—contrary to the laws of physics—the hydrogen and helium gas gradually pushed itself into chunks. More and more of it clumped together, until soon gigantic pieces of it had formed. These became stars and galaxies with their intricate orbits.

“The current theory of the origin of the universe is called the Big Bang. According to this theory, a fireball exploded 15 to 20 billion years ago. Then matter and energy spread outward in all directions, cooling as it expanded. After about 500,000 years, hydrogen gas formed. The gas collected into clouds which formed galaxies during the next half billion years. Now all that remains are galaxies and radiation. Within the galaxies, stars form and die and new ones form.” —*M. Bishop, *B. Sutherland, and *P. Lewis, Focus on Earth Science (1981), p. 470.

The initial “Bang” explosion is said to have produced only hydrogen and perhaps helium, but after the stars had pushed themselves together—they began exploding like strings of firecrackers. Then, reforming, large numbers exploded a second time. And presto! All 90 elements had been produced by the second wave of explosions!

A UNIVERSE OF EXPLOSIONS—As the story goes, explosion after explosion took place as loose gas pressed itself into stars and then those stars exploded. Hundreds of billions of stars were exploding all over the universe. This went on for long ages. There was no reason why it started, and there was no way for it to stop. It was a self-initiating activity, destined to continue on forever. These regularly-occurring explosions should be occurring in our own time. When you go out tonight you ought to be able to see exploding stars in the sky.

Each time these stars exploded outward, they gathered back together and exploded again. We are told that our own sun had its third explosion about 5 billion years ago.

But, quite well aware that stars are not now regularly exploding in the sky, the theorists came up with the idea that about a million years ago the explosions mysteriously stopped! Why did they set that terminal date at “a million years ago”? Because—at the time that the Big Bang theory was devised—the most distant stars were thought to be a million light years away, and since they are not now seen to be exploding—it was decided that they must have stopped exploding just before the time that their starlight was sent to us from that those farthest distances from Earth.

It took a science fiction writer to bring all these new ideas to the attention of the scientists. Because it is a concept about how the entire universe began, the Big Bang Is called a “cosmology. “

REARRANGING TIME—Half a century ago, it was theorized that the universe might be two billion years old. But in order to make room for this new “Big Bang” theory of the origin of matter, the age of the universe was pushed back to between 10 to 20 billion years old, with the Big Bang occurring most probably 15 billion years ago.

This strange theory of fog coming out of nothing and then pressing itself into stars may sound like foolishness, but we are here discussing the only main theory of the origin of matter accepted by evolutionary scientists in this, the last half of our enlightened twentieth century.

Since this is a major part of the overall evolutionary theory taught in colleges and universities all over the land, we do well to learn a few of the scientific reasons why it is totally impossible!

FACTS WHICH DISPROVE THE BIG BANG THEORY45 Problems

We have seen what the theory says. But it Is In complete disagreement with many scientific facts, principles, and laws. Let us for a few moments consider some of the evidence that disproves this astounding concept of how matter and stars originated.

(1) NOT SQUEEZABLE— Nothingness never packs together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile. There is no physical law to explain such a peculiar event.

*Hannes Alfven, professor of plasma physics at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, heatedly opposes the idea that the universe could ever have attained such a fantastic density.

The Big Bang is supposed to be an explosion of concentrated nothingness. But nothingness never pushes itself into anything, much less a concentrated pile. A total vacuum is the complete opposite of total density. This theory is not science, but a playing with words.

(2) NOT STOPPABLE—There would be no mechanism that could push all the emptiness in the universe to a common center,—and then, having arrived there, to suddenly stop it at a single point. It would just rush on past.

If emptiness could press itself together, there would be nothing to hold itself tightly meshed for even a short time. Gravity operates only on matter and radiation, not on a lack of it. There is no such thing as a vacuum being pulled by gravity into something dense. It is, as said above, just a playing on words.

(3) NOTHING TO EXPLODE ITNot only was there no matter in this theoretical “beginning,”—there obviously could be no energy at that time either. It takes energy to have an explosion. There was no match to start the fire. Without energy there can be no heat, no explosion. Yet the Big Bang is supposed to have produced a massive heat blast which congealed vacuity into hydrogen.

This theory is supposed teach the origin of matter. But it would also have to include the origin of energy, for the two are variant forms of one another. An explosion could not occur without energy, and without matter there would be nothing to explode outward. Without pre-existing matter and energy, there could be no match, no fire, no fuse, and no dynamite. Nothing exploding with no energy to explode, it is impossible.

Some Big Bang supporters think that perhaps there may originally have been an immense concentration of energy. But they have absolutely no idea where it came from or how it got there. To say that energy already existed in the beginning is to self-destruct any “origin of matter” theory based on that idea. This is because matter and energy are alternate forms of the same thing. Any “origin of matter” theory must also explain the origin of energy.

Other evolutionists have come up with the theory that energy was initially created by an explosion of no-energy! But that is just more of this evolutionary “word wizardry” that may sound convincing, but in reality is utter foolishness.

Seriously now, “nothing exploding with no energy to explode it” is clearly impossible twice over.

It is of interest that every evolutionary theory that tries to explain the origin of either matter or energy—always tacitly assumes that one or both already existed.

(4) NO WAY TO EXPAND IT—Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity (which it cannot), what would then cause the big pile of emptiness to push outward? The same “gravity” that brought it together, would later prevent it from expanding.

A total vacuum can not be expanded any more than it can be contracted. If a pile of emptiness could be pressed together, what would later untie it, much less explode it outward? (I know all this sounds like foolishness, but we are discussing a foolish notion, such as one would expect to find only in fairy tales for small children.)

The origin of matter theory teaches that, by the time of expansion, the vacuum had been transformed into hydrogen and helium. So, beginning at this point, we will assume that that which is exploding outward is not emptiness, but gas.

(5) NO WAY TO SLOW IT—If hydrogen gas blew outward after an explosion in outer space, there would be no way to slow it. This is a key point. An explosion of matter would cause an outward spray of gas and energy. It would continue to move outward in space forever. Space is frictionless. There would be no way to slow the gas, nothing to stop it.

(6) NO WAY TO CLUMP IT—On earth, gas never clumps into a solid. Out in space, where everything is a near-vacuum, it would be totally impossible—impossible in the extreme——for this to occur. Throughout the voids of space between the stars is to be found various gases, the primary one of which is hydrogen. These gaseous compounds never move away from an area of vacuum into an area of congestion or density. Never, never, never. It just does not happen. The hydrogen gas observed by astronomers through telescopes is gradually expanding. None of it is packing together. There are no exceptions! Slow expansion of gaseous matter in outer space is normal, and in accordance with physical laws.

“Scattered through the vast darkness between stars, the molecules of interstellar space range. . These molecules of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and scores of other compounds generally make up a tenuous soup—a trillion trillion times less dense than stars or planets.” —*Allan Fallow, et. al., Between the Stars(1990), p. 65.

Frankly, after examining item after item of scientific facts in this chapter, we will find the Big Bang theory to be only a connected series of tiny tot stories. Repeatedly, we will find that the theories run counter to the facts.

(7) NO WAY TO PRODUCE STARS—That outrushing gas from the Big Bang that was not able to stop or clump, we are told then did so. And more, it began forming itself into the intricate patterns of planets, stars, and galaxies! This is an important point; in fact, it is a key one. The laws of physics provide no mechanism by which outwardly exploding gas could clump together into stars This is a crucial point.

“Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.), the theory is able to explain so little.” —*G. Burbridge, “Was There Really a Big Bang?” in Nature, 233:36-40.

Gas floating in the vacuum of outer space cannot form itself into stars. Once a star is formed, it can hold itself together by gravity, but there is no way that gas in outer space can get the operation started. (All gas clouds in outer space are more rarified than that found in the most rarified vacuum-bottle pressures that man is able to produce on earth.) Yes, once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. It will remain just loose, floating gas.

(8) NO WAY TO PRODUCE COMPLEX ATOMS—*George Gamow and his associates decided that, after the initial explosion, outflowing emptiness first changed itself into hydrogen and helium atoms, with their nuclei, protons, electrons, and all the rest. These two elements are very complex in their structure, even though they have less atomic units in them than do the other elements. (There are 81 stable chemical elements; 90 natural elements; 105 total elements discovered to date; of carbon compounds alone there are thousands.) How can such nuclear complexity emerge from nothing? It cannot be done, yet *Gamow theorized that all the hydrogen and helium in the universe magically brought itself into existence.

(It should be mentioned that only in the intense heat of a nuclear explosion can hydrogen even change into helium.)

(9) NO WAY TO GO PAST THE HELIUM MASS 4 GAP—In a thermonuclear explosion, hydrogen may be changed into helium, but it is much, much more difficult (some consider it impossible) for hydrogen to go past the “helium mass 4 gap” and produce the heavier atoms in an explosion.

The Big Bang theory requires an atom-building process after the initial explosion. This initial atom-building process is based on successive neutron-capture reactions to achieve elements of increasing atomic weights in a stepwise manner, starting with, according to one Big Bang theory, a 100 percent neutron content of the primordial ylem. According to the theory, at the end of the first 30 minutes slightly more than half of the ylem has been converted into hydrogen, with slightly less than half into helium. But it is quite another thing to go past helium! Physicists know well that, among nuclides that can actually be formed, a gap exists at mass 5 and 8. The first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium.

It is true that some scientists believe that a hydrogen bomb explosion can produce elements beyond helium, but there is also evidence (which we will discuss later in this chapter) which would indicate that this is not so.

“In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea. —.*William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].

For additional information, see the quotation supplement, “3 – The Mysterious Elements,” at the end of this chapter.

(10) NO WAY TO COMPRESS LOOSE GAS—Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together. Both hydrogen and helium are very much like fog. Have you ever seen fog push together into balls? It never does. Stars do indeed have helium and hydrogen—and once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well. But getting it together In the first place is the problem.

“There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules.” —H. M. Morris, W, W, Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

All the gas in those marvelous gas clouds of the cosmologists begins like all the gas clouds now in outer space: with a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! If men cannot push cold hydrogen into a solid on earth where we have lots of barometric pressure from the atmosphere to help us—how do they expect hydrogen to have done it by itself in the near-total vacuum of outer space?

Gas will not naturally compress itself under conditions existing on earth or in outer space. Have you ever seen fog push itself together into solids? This is an important point which we will return to. All hydrogen gas in outer space now is slowly expanding outward; it is never contracting inward.

Continued on next page…

Geocentric Theory

Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. Geocentrists believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. Geocentricity is a conceptual model of the form of the universe which makes three basic assertions about the nature of the earth and its relationship to the rest of the universe. These are: (a) the earth is the center of the universe, (b) the earth is fixed (i.e., immobile) in space, and (c) the earth is unique and special compared to all other heavenly bodies.

Traditional thought is Geocentric Universe

A detailed Christian view of the universe, based on various Biblical texts and earlier theories by Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria, was formulated by the 6th century Egyptian monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. He described a flat rectangular world surrounded by four seas; at the far edges of the seas, four immense vertical walls supported a vaulted roof, the firmament, above which in a further vaulted space lived angels who moved the heavenly bodies and controlled rainfall from a vast cistern. Augustine wrote that too much learning had been expended on the nature of the firmament. “We may understand this name as given to indicate not it is motionless but that it is solid.” he wrote. Saint Basil argued for a fluid firmament. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the firmament had a “solid nature” and stood above a “region of fire, wherein all vapor must be consumed.”

According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars.

The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554, John Calvin proposed that “firmament” be interpreted as clouds. “He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere,” wrote Calvin. Genesis had to conform to popular prejudice regarding cosmology, or it would not have been accepted.

The Greeks and Stoics adopted a model of celestial spheres after the discovery of the spherical Earth in the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE. The Medieval Scholastics adopted a cosmology that fused the ideas of the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Ptolemy. This cosmology involved celestial orbs, nested concentrically inside one another, with the earth at the center. The outermost orb contained the stars and the term firmament was then transferred to this orb. There were seven inner orbs for the seven wanderers of the sky, and their ordering is preserved in the naming of the days of the week.

(from the Jewish Encyclopedia) Biblical Astronomy, in the broad sense, includes the views taken in the books of the Bible of the position of the earth in the universe, the designation of the stars, planets, fixed stars, and the views held regarding them. The sky, the abode of the stars, is described as a “raḳia'” (, a plate); that is, a rigid, broad, solid plate possessing a certain thickness. According to Gen. i. 6, this raḳia’ was set in the midst of the waters, and it divided the waters above from those beneath. God “made” it of matter already existing at the time of Creation; that is, He did not “create” it at that time. The raḳia’ representing the sky in Ezek. i. 22 resembled ice; therefore it is quite possible that the author of Genesis, like Ezekiel, regarded the sky as being composed of solidified water or ice. Such a sky, being transparent, would permit the stars, which are located above its vault, to be seen through it.

The heavenly bodies, according to Gen. 1:16, were also made (not created) from existing material, after light had come into existence. They were certainly made of the material of light, just as the vault of the sky was made out of water-material, and the human soul from air (Gen. ii. 7), and all things living upon earth from earth (Gen. i. 24). All these were made of the four elements, light (or fire), water, air, and earth; only those creatures which subsist in air and water—that is, in other elements than those of which they are composed—were created; while man, the image of God, although living on earth and being of the earth, was “created and made” (Gen. i. 26, 27; but see ii. 7).

The Talmud subscribes, as do all astronomers before the time of Copernicus, to the geocentric world conception, according to which the stars move about the earth. The conceptions of this motion were various. Aristotle believes that the stars have no motion of their own, being firmly attached to circles of rotation; and he further ascribes to every circle containing a star a sphere of motion whose center is the earth (Pauly-Wissowa, “Realencyklopädie der Classischen Alterthumswissenschaft,” 1841, ii.). Perhaps the wonderful Baraita PesaḦim 94b gives expression to this idea in the following: “The learned of Israel say, ‘The sphere stands firm, and the planets revolve’; the learned of the nations say, ‘The sphere moves, and the planets stand firm.’ The learned of Israel say, ‘The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night above the firmament’; the learned of the nations say, ‘The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night beneath the earth.'” The patriarch Judah I. (about 200) believed that in the first instance the Jewish, and in the second the non-Jewish, conception was correct. The sun travels in four directions. During Nisan, Iyyar, and Siwan (spring) it travels in the south, in order to melt the snow; during Tammuz, Ab, and Elul (summer), directly above the earth, in order to ripen the fruit; during Tishri, Ḥeshwan, and Kislew, above the sea, in order to absorb the waters; and in Ṭebet, Shebaṭ, and Adar, over the desert, in order that the grain may not dry up and wither (ib.).

The sun has 365 windows through which it emerges; 182 in the east, 182 in the west, and 1 in the middle, the place of its first entrance. The course described by it in a year is traversed by the moon in 30 days. The solar year is longer by 11 days than the lunar year (Yer. R. H. ii. 58a). The sun completes its course in 12 months; Jupiter, in 12 years; Saturn, in 30 years; Venus and Mars, in 480 years (Gen. R. x. 4); however, an objection is raised here (in a gloss) against the last-mentioned number. King Antoninus asked the patriarch why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. At the time of the Deluge it traveled in the opposite direction (Sanh. 91b, 108b). Every 28 years it returns to its original point of departure, and on Tuesday evening of the spring solstice it is in opposition with Saturn, although Plato maintained that the sun and planets never return to the place whence they started. This is the cycle of 28 years (Ber. 59b); the moon-cycle of 19 years may have been meant in the Targ. Yer. Gen. i. 14.

From the names of the seven planets were derived the names of the days of the week; and each day was consecrated to the particular planet that ruled during the early hours of the morning. The Talmudists were familiar with the planets and their characteristics (see Astrology); but only the week-days were counted, while the Sabbath had a name of its own. The names of the seven planets are: (1) “Shabbetai,” Saturn; (2) “Ẓedeḳ,” Jupiter; (3) “Maadim,” Mars; (4) “Ḥammah,” the sun; (5) “Kokebet” or “Nogah,” “Kokab-Nogah,” Venus; (6) “Kokab,” Mercury; (7) “Lebanah,” the moon. According to the first letter of each of their names, they are called “SheẒaM ḤeNKaL” (Shab. 129b, 156a; Pesiḳ. R. xx.; Pirḳe R. El. vi.). The worship of Venus is mentioned (Pesiḳ. R. xxxi., ed. Friedmann, p. 143a), and warning is given not to confuse it with the dawn (; Yer. Ber. i. 2c).

The Milky Way is called “Fire-Stream,” a name borrowed from Daniel vii. 10 (“Nehar di-nur”), where it may possibly have had the same signification. The statement is also made that the sting of Scorpio may be seen lying in the Milky Way (Ḥag. 13b; Ex. R. xv. 6, ; Ber. 58b). Samuel said: “We have it as a tradition that no comet ever passed across the face of Orion [“Kesil”]; for if this should happen the earth would be destroyed.” When his hearers objected to this statement, saying, “Yet we see that this occurs,” Samuel replied: “It only appears so; for the comet passes either above or below the star. Possibly also its radiance passes, but not its body.” Again, Samuel says: “But for the warmth of Orion, the earth could not exist, because of the frigidity of Scorpio; furthermore, Orion lies near Taurus, with which the warm season begins (Yer. Ber. ix. 13c; Bab. Ber. 58b). The comet, because of its tail, is called “kokba de-shabbiṭ.” (rodstar). Joshua b. Hananiah, the famous teacher of the Law (about 100), declared that a star appears once every seventy years and leads mariners astray; hence they should at such time lay in a larger store of provisions (Hor. 10a). Rapoport endeavors to prove that the path of Halley’s comet had been computed by a wise rabbi (Epistle to Slonimski in “Toledot ha-Shamayim,” Warsaw, 1838). Samuel said: “I know all the paths of heaven, but nothing of the nature of the comet.”

Ptolemy modified through his observations

Pythagoras

Around 550 BC, Pythagoras said the sun should be the center because it is the most magnificent of the gods. One of his pupils (in Mystery Schools) introduced a model of sun centered earth. The paradigm at this time and for centuries prior was that the earth was flat and stationary with a firmament above it, which was believed to be divinely revealed. Pythagoras, a disciple of Plato, who according to the Rosicrucian Society, was a member of their Mystery school.

Nicholas Copernicus said he could make this Heliocentric model work, but introduced his model in a book, but it was not accurate. Shortly before his death in 1543 and with some hesitation, Copernicus (1473–1543), the Polish mathematician and astronomer, published On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, in which he argued that the earth was not the center of the universe, as generally believed, but rotated on its axis and revolved with the other known planets around the stationary sun. Over the subsequent decades, opposition to his theory (as a description of physical reality, rather than merely as an alternative mathematical description) arose because it seemed contrary to common sense, was opposed to Aristotelian physics, lacked convincing astronomical evidence, and was contrary to a literal interpretation of various Scriptures. Approximately 150 years passed before his theory was generally accepted. But it was soon embraced by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), though the latter was at first reluctant to publicize his views. (Source)

Even Copernicus’ heliocentric model included an outer sphere that held the stars (and by having the earth rotate daily on its axis it allowed the firmament to be completely stationary). Tycho Brahe‘s studies of the nova of 1572 and the Comet of 1577 were the first major challenges to the idea that orbs existed as solid, incorruptible, material objects. In 1584, Giordano Bruno (who disputed the divinity of Christ and many Christian teachings) proposed a cosmology without firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems. After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky, it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required. By 1630, the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.1

The following are Copernicus’ words:

It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation… Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. … The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood.

Anthony Lauterbach, who dined with the Luther’s (Martin Luther’s family), quotes the conversation pertaining to Copernicus as follows [l8]:

There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving.”  [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth” [Jos. 10:12].”

Galileo Galilei was convinced that Aristotle’s physics were wrong, and began a campaign to  bring on Aristotle’s ideas of physics. Aristotle had a model of a geocentric model earth so naturally Galileo adopted the opposing Heliocentric model of Copernicus and supported it with all his might. The Catholic church (Pope Urban VIII) had commissioned him to write a scientific report, but he instead wrote a propagandist book that had a genius (himself) putting forth a sun-centered universe in a discussion with an idiot putting forward the earth centered universe. Realizing from the beginning that his sun-centered universe was against the teachings of the Bible, he wrote to one of his pupils, Dom Benedetto Castelli, “In questions concerning the natural sciences, Holy Writ must occupy the last place. Until this time, scriptures had occupied the first place, but now…no place at all.”

In 1613, Galileo came out in the open in his Letters on Sunspots. He argued that his observations of the heavens by means of the recently invented telescope were consistent with what Copernicus had proposed was the actual relationship and movement of the earth and heavenly bodies. Initially, the Roman Catholic authorities accepted Galileo’s assertions as compatible with the teachings of the Church. Eventually, however, Jesuit university professors (who were ultra-orthodox defenders of Catholic dogma and embraced the geocentric theory) were sufficiently provoked by Galileo’s further writings so that they pressured the pope in 1633 to force Galileo to recant the heliocentric theory on threat of excommunication. He did recant, but was still under house arrest for the remainder of his life. (Source)

Tycho Brahe, a Danish astronomer, took the most accurate measurements ever taken of the position of the sun, moon, stars, and planets. He said that:

  1. The earth is the center of the universe because (1) the Bible says so and (2) my observations agree with it.
  2. The moon and the sun go around the earth because  (1) the Bible says so and (2) my observations agree with it.
  3. My observation show that the stars go rotate around the sun

Greek astronomers and most of the people who listened to them believed, at the time, that celestial objects were perfect circles, moving in perfect circles without change for all time. This view fell apart thanks to the Danish astronomer. In November of 1572, he was walking home from his uncle’s chemistry laboratory and noticed a new star, shining brightly in the constellation Casseopeia.

Tycho, usually called by his first name, led an unusual life in many respects. He was born into the upper crust of Danish nobility. Attending a dance at a professor’s house at the University of Rostack, Germany, he fell into an argument with another aristocrat, Manderup Parsbjerg. They fought, and Tycho lost his nose. For the rest of his life, he wore a metal replacement, usually said to be made from silver. According to legend, he died when good manners forced him to remain at a banquet table, even though he desperately needed to urinate. After several hours of this torture, his bladder burst.

Investigations proved that it was indeed a pee related death, and not one of mercury poisoning, which was rumored to have been the case after mercury was claimed to have been found in the remains of Brahe when his grave was examined on the 300th anniversary of his death. New, more detailed analysis though shows that it was indeed a ruptured bladder that led to the demise of on of the greatest minds of the 16th century.

Keppler, Brahe’s assistant

Kepler was involved in occult science and astrology. He is quoted as saying:

‘The soul of the newly born baby is marked for life by the pattern of the STARS at the moment it comes into the world, unconsciously remembers it, and remains sensitive to the return of configurations of a similar kind.’

Much of Kepler’s enthusiasm for the Copernican (heliocentric) system stemmed from his theological convictions about the connection between the physical and the spiritual; the universe itself was an image of God, with the sun corresponding to the Father. All of this seems to link back to Constantine’s promoting of sun worship (Roman gods), which seeped its way into the Church through symbols and rituals. Perhaps his bias is what led him to fabricate data to fit the Copernican model and bolster acceptance by skeptics:

“The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind”

”He fudged things,” Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary.

(Source: New York Times)

Isaac Newton

Also noted in the article: “Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who formulated the law of gravitation, relied on unseemly mathematical sleight of hand in his magnum opus to make the predictive power of his work seem greater than it was.” The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects long before Newton bestowed his theory of “gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are magnetically attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims “gravity” does with the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.

Newton’s gravity, however, would make a solar system imaginable. Both Copernicus himself, and even Newton, his great exponent, confessed that their system of a revolving earth was only a possibility, and could not be proven by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it as an ‘exact science’ and law. Any law of science should be measurable and able to be duplicated or tested by the scientific method, such as density and buoyancy.

The magical theory of gravity allows for oceans, buildings and people to remain forever stuck to the underside of a spinning ball while simultaneously causing objects like the Moon (supposedly over 250,000 miles away) and satellites (100 to 25,000 miles away) to remain locked in perpetual circular orbits around the Earth while astronauts are able to experience weightlessnes, or zero gravity, just a couple of hundred miles from the earth’s surface.

Aberration of Light Theory

In 1728, British Astronomer James Bradley concluded, over the course of many surveys, that a slight annual movement observed in the stars, or aberration of light, must be caused by the orbit of the earth around the sun. This was a theory only, but was adopted as proof by many biased scientist. However, this explanation proved inaccurate once the wave nature of light was better understood, and correcting it became a major goal of the 19th century theories of luminiferous aether. Standard astronomical history still holds and teaches that it was James Bradley (1692-1762) who found “the first experimental proof that the earth has a yearly motion”.

In fact, Bradley’s ”aberration of star light” gave the first experimental disproof of the heliocentric hypothesis. To recall to mind the bare facts: in December 1725 James Bradley and Samuel Molyneux began a prolonged observation of the star Gamma Draconis, which passed almost vertically overhead at their location. For their observations they fixed a telescope to a chimney stack of the Molyneux house in the hope of detecting the eagerly sought-after parallax, thus proving at long last the Copernican theory. Simply stated, the matter is this: if indeed the earth moves in its orbit around the sun, then the place from which we observe the stars will be continually changing. Therefore, we shall see a nearby star as moving in a small circle against a background of more distant stars (see Figure 1). What is more: looking at such a nearby star A from point M in March, and point S in September, and knowing the distance SM to be about 3×108 km, we can by means of triangulation obtain the distance to A.

Now Bradley found that Gamma Draconis indeed does describe a small circle with a radius of 20.5 seconds of arc (20”.5). The problem facing him was how to explain this phenomenon. Did it indeed result from the earth’s revolution about the sun, and hence relative to the array of fixed stars? That is, did it show the parallax he had hoped to find or was the motion caused by the sun and stars circling with respect to an earth “at rest?” Bradley was forced to opt for the first alternative, but then had to reject it; for Gamma Draconis did not circle against the backdrop of stars, but all the stars joined in the motion which would imply that they were all at the same distance from earth. In other words, to accept the phenomenon as a parallax would mean re-introducing the discarded medieval concept of a Stellatum, a gigantic shell of stars centered on the sun which revolves about us. Since this was considered to be impossible, another interpretation of the observational facts had to be found. The circlets were decidedly not offering parallaxes, but what, then, did cause them?

After pondering the problem for a time, so the story goes, Bradley invented the interpretation in 1728 during a sailing trip on the Thames. In doing so, he thought he had solidly established the truth of the Copernican-Newtonian synthesis by means of what he called the ”aberration of starlight.”

Many scientists at this time, still familiar with Tycho Brahe‘s model, said that this could also easily be explained by the stars motion around the sun (excluding the earth) because they are actually moving, but the earth is not. As Ruggiero Guiseppe Boscovich (1711-1787) reasoned, Bradley’s 20”.5 angle of aberration depended on the ratio between the speed of light and the orbital velocity of the earth, and t latter we cannot change; but the former we are able to reduce by means of observing the stars through a telescope filled with water. This will slow down the light, and consequently increase the angle of aberration. A water-filled telescope will thus have to be tilted more than an air-filled one. The matter could have been settled by performing this test, but no one would bother to test the theory at this time.

In 1810, Francois Arago, a French scientist performed experiments discovering that when a glass plate placed beneath the telescope sights was moved, the image of the stars he was observing was dragged along with it. The same results were observed with tests of prisms. These results could all be explained with a stationary earth, but not with a moving earth.

Airy’s Failure

In 1871, the British astronomer George Airy finally decided to test the ellipse, a closed curve consisting of points whose distances from each of two fixed points (foci) all add up to the same value, by filling a telescope with water. If the earth was moving around the sun then the ellipse would be 1.5X bigger, thus proving the Copernican model. If it’s the same size then it means it is the stars that are doing the ellipse. The experiment resulted in the same size ellipse indicating that the stars were doing the ellipse and that the earth must be stationary.

Since the earth, as every right-thinking person was supposed to know, goes around the sun, it had to be possible somehow to explain away Airy’s failure and to affirm Bradley’s truth. Those who believed in a heliocentric model came up with an ad hoc hypothesis to explain it. They said that as the earth moves through the ether, or fabric of space, it drags the ether along with it partially, just enough to make the ellipse the same size! By means of Fresnel’s so-called ”dragging coefficient,” the appearances could be saved.

It goes without saying that neither one thing nor the other caused the astronomers, if even for a few moments, to consider a geocentric solution. The desperately stubborn search for the unfindable went on.

James Clark Maxwell, a Scottish scientist in the field of mathematical physics known for his classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, showed that light has electric and magnetic energy that swap from one to another and the rate at which it swaps is constant if the properties of space is constant. Thus, his discovery made it possible to measure how fast the earth is moving through space, as everyone had been led to believe in spite of the evidence to the contrary up to this point.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

On November 14, 1887, Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley conducted an experiment, considered sciences most famous failure… even more so than “Airy’s failure” that is labeled as such. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of the Earth with respect to the hypothetical luminiferous ether that was supposedly being dragged by the earth just enough to make the ellipse the same size. First performed in Germany in 1880–81 by the physicist A.A. Michelson, the test was later refined in 1887 by Michelson and Edward W. Morley in the United States.

Isaac Newton

The procedure depended on a Michelson interferometer, a sensitive optical device that compares the optical path lengths for light moving in two mutually perpendicular directions. It was reasoned that, if the speed of light were constant with respect to the proposed ether through which the Earth was moving, that motion could be detected by comparing the speed of light in the direction of the Earth’s motion and the speed of light at right angles to the Earth’s motion. No difference was found. This null result seriously discredited the ether theories. The experiment was repeated in several countries (both day and night, both high and low places, and at different times throughout the year) and all results showed that the ether was not being dragged along at this perfect speed to contradict Airy’s failed experiment.

Adolf Baker said of the experiment, “…thus, failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of  the year suggested that the earth must be at rest…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space.

D.C. Giancoli:But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the Universe.

Bernard Jaffe said, “The data were almost unbelievable. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw, that the earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous.”

The Theory of Relativity

Thus, yet another ad hoc theory was proposed. An Irish physicist, Fitzgerald, suggested that as a body moves through the ether of space, that the pressure of the ether against it makes it shrink up, thus resulting in the negative results shown in the Michelson-Morley experiment.  In 1892, with the attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, Hendrik Lorentz proposed his Theory of Relativity that moving bodies contract in the direction of motion (see length contractionGeorge FitzGerald had already arrived at this conclusion in 1889). He noticed some objects seem to contract when traveling at high velocity in certain direction and that clocks seemed to slow down as they went faster. Using this theory of relativity he was able to account for all of the observations that showed that the earth stands still. Lorentz theory, however, was proven wrong by the Kennedy Thorndike Experiment, thus science was still pointing to a stationary earth.

Over 300 years since Copernicus proposed the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the universe, it was up to Albert Einstein to change Lorentz’s theory so that it would explain the results of the Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment. Instead of having the bodies contracting as they press against the supposed ether, he had space getting shorter. Instead of the clocks slowing down because of the ether’s pressure, it was rather time was actually slowing down. C+V=C=C-V

Einstein presented this theory in 1905, along with three other ground-breaking essays, none of which had a single reference or even mentioned their predecessors who had first proposed each theory. That’s because the essay was plagiarized from Hendrik Lorentz, George FitzGerald, and the Frenchman Poincaré. Yet we have been led to believe that a man who had

  1. with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma” at the age of 15. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
  2. failed his simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
  3. was unable to get a job teaching after finally graduating from College
  4. been working full time as a third-rate patent clerk reviewing technical documents

had somehow found the time and sudden brainpower to solve the problems of the universe?

George Sagnac, a french scientist, tested Einstein’s theory in 1913 by building a turntable with light reflectors and light sources sending a beam clockwise and another beam counter-clockwise. When the turntable was spun, one light having to chase the mirrors (c+V) in the spinning direction and the other being met by the spin (C-V), according to Einstein’s theory, would result in equal fringe shift. However, Einstein was proven wrong in this theory as C+V was not equal to C or C-V.

In Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis by Roberto A. Monti, the author states in the abstract:

Einstein’s theory of relativity is shown to be a physical theory of limited experimental validity. Twelve different experiments seem to disprove its two postulates.

On the subject of the Sagnac Effect the author maintains:

The effect was tested in 1913 by Sagnac(46), and Sagnac’s experimental results disproved the second postulate of special relativity.

Most of these early physicists knew that Einstein was a fraud. It’s 1913, and according to proven and measurable science, the earth remains still.

Then came the supposed crowning scientific proof for special relativity with the eclipse of 1919. Arthur Eddington’s selective presentation of data from the 1919 Eclipse so that it supported “Einstein’s” general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science.

The press promoted these falsified reports and told the general public that the geocentric theory had been overthrown and that Einstein was a great genius, who was at least the equal of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. The press reported that Einstein’s unique insight was so sophisticated and enlightened that only twelve men in the world could understand it. The sensational reports created a mass hysteria for Einstein in America, one which culminated in Einstein’s visit to the United States in the spring of 1921. Einstein’s trip came shortly after Einstein had endured a series of public humiliations in the scientific community in Germany in 1920. He was hiding from the German scientists who had informed the public that he was a fraud.

Even Nikola Tesla would chime on on the absurdity of special relativity:

“Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”  – Nikola Tesla, New York Times (11 July 1935)

Michelson, before he died in 1931, conducted another experiment similar to the Sagnac experiment and his former experiment, on a much larger scale of about 1km in length. The idea was that the beam closest to the equator would travel along a different speed ether drift than the other, thus there should result no fringe shift if in fact there is an ether and if C+V=C=C-V. There was a fringe shift, thus Einstein wrong again, C+V not equal to C not equal to C-V.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the fainter a galaxy appeared, which he assumed were further away, that the redshift appeared to be moving away from these presumably further away galaxies. Hence, he concluded that the universe is expanding and that the further away a galaxy the faster it was receding (Doppler shift or effect). This caused Einstein to recant his static universe theory and called it his biggest blunder. This also meant that, according the redshift, that the earth is in the center from which everything is expanding. Well, that couldn’t be, so they found a way to use Einstein’s funny mathematics to explain away the red shift, but without the earth as the center. But, in these experiments, observations were made of the density of matter in the universe, and it was found that the earth is in the densest part of the universe and as you get further from the earth there is less and less material. So, they decided to apply a dimming factor to make the results  appear more even so that the earth did not appear central to anything again.

Metawalls across the Cosmos were discovered in 1990: Science Frontiers editor wrote an editorial on these metawalls and said, “Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the earth were at the center of these concentric shells …Some measurements of the universe’s rotation also seem to imply geocentrism.” A research program was set up called the Sloan-Sky Survey. The results had the earth in the very center of these metawalls.

Quasars: All quasars lie on concentric shells centered around the earth. V.P. Varshni said that, “The cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result, namely that the earth is the center of the universe.” – Astrophysics & Space Science, 43

Dark Energy: On August 30th, 2009, Blake Temple & Joel Smaller said that, “The only way we can explain Dark Energy is for the earth to be the center of the universe.”

After little if any science to back a heliocentric universe, and scientific experiment after scientific experiment pointing to a geocentric universe (not to mention the Bible, that was believed to have backed the science), why does the scientific community never consider that the earth just might be motionless and central?

A.J. Burgess said,

The story of Christianity tells about a plan of salvation centered upon a particular people and a particular man. As long as someone is thinking in terms of a geocentric universe the story has a certain plausibility. As soon as astronomy changes theories, however, the whole Christian history loses the only setting within which it would make sense. With the solar system no longer the center of anything, imagining that what happens here forms the center of a universal drama becomes simply silly.

J.F. Henry pointed out that,

The possibility that we have a special place in the universe is depressing to the humanist and is to be absolutely avoided.

All of science has based their calculations and theories based on the earth rotating around the sun at 666,000 miles per hour and the sun rotating in the galaxy at millions of miles per hour. Charles Lyle claimed the earth was millions of years old and the Bible was wrong just like it was about its position. Darwin came along adding that it was also wrong about how it was created and how beings were created…just like it was wrong about its age and position. Satan is intent on attacking the foundations of the gospel and Christianity and does not want us to know that we are God’s creations and have a divine purpose here on this earth.

Chronological History of Events Related to Geocentricism

The 1919 Solar Eclipse that Supposedly Confirmed Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a Fraud

The 1919 Solar Eclipse that Supposedly Confirmed Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was a Fraud

There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Arthur Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to "Einstein's" work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse. Prior to 1919, general relativity was ...
Read More
Galileo Convicted of Heresy for Teaching the Heliocentric System of the Earth Revolving Around the Sun

Galileo Convicted of Heresy for Teaching the Heliocentric System of the Earth Revolving Around the Sun

Despite the considerable evidence that the Bible provided the necessary intellectual basis for science, atheists often claim that, historically, science and religion have been at war. For centuries, they say, the church opposed the advancement of science and human progress in general. When asked for evidence in support of this view, they usually cite the ‘Galileo affair’. Few, however, know what really happened, and many historians ...
Read More

Darwin, Charles

(12 Feb 1809–19 Apr 1882) a famous naturalist born in England who is best known for popularizing the idea of evolution by natural selection presented in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (commonly referred to simply as The Origin of Species). The concept is that organisms are modified over vast amounts of time by naturally occurring processes, originating from common ancestors that lived tens of millions of years ago. Outside the area of evolutionary theory, in particular, Darwin was regarded as an expert on barnacles, as well as being credited with discovering how coral atolls were formed. Darwinism attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of natural selection or “survival of the fittest.” Read More at Conservapedia…

Chronological History of Events Involving Charles Darwin

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture  Announced that over 700 Scientists from Around the World have Signed Statement Against Darwinism

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture Announced that over 700 Scientists from Around the World have Signed Statement Against Darwinism

Another 100 scientists have joined the ranks of scientists from around the world publicly stating their doubts about the adequacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution. “Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology,” says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, ...
Read More
Edwards v. Aguillard: SCOTUS held that the Creationism Act was Intended to Promote Religion, and Therefore Violated the Establishment Clause

Edwards v. Aguillard: SCOTUS held that the Creationism Act was Intended to Promote Religion, and Therefore Violated the Establishment Clause

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind ...
Read More
Secret Society Insider, Dr. Richard Day, National Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, Reveals the Global Elite's Evil Plan for Humanity

Secret Society Insider, Dr. Richard Day, National Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, Reveals the Global Elite’s Evil Plan for Humanity

There was a meeting of pediatricians and students which took place at the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society and one of the speakers was Dr. Richard Day, an eminent professor and physician as well as well as Director of Planned Parenthood. He asked that no notes or recordings be made of the meeting due to possible danger and/or consequences. He then revealed not just what is planned for the ...
Read More
The Piltdown Man Hoax: One of Many Scientific Frauds of Evolution

The Piltdown Man Hoax: One of Many Scientific Frauds of Evolution

The Piltdown Man fraud is generally regarded as the greatest scientific hoax of all time. Charles Dawson, lawyer and amateur archaeologist, geologist, etc., created a phony archaeological scenario with doctored-up artifacts, both hand-delivered by Dawson to the British scientific establishment (mainly Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum of Natural History) and planted in the ground, to deceive the world’s greatest scientists of the time (1912-1916) ...
Read More
Charles Darwin Publishes 'Origin of the Species' Theorizing that Species Originated by Evolutionary Means

Charles Darwin Publishes ‘Origin of the Species’ Theorizing that Species Originated by Evolutionary Means

Charles Darwin published his thesis 'Origin of the Species' on November 24th, 1859 - after more than twenty years of waiting to formerly resurrect the age old theory that had never gained any ground prior to his publishing. Maybe it just needed the backing of an anti-Christian, Illuminist power behind it to attack the Biblical creation story and Judaeo-Christian belief that God is the creator of ...
Read More

Piltdown Man

A fraud generally regarded as the greatest scientific hoax of all time. Charles Dawson, lawyer and amateur archaeologist, geologist, etc., created a phony archaeological scenario with doctored-up artifacts, both hand-delivered by Dawson to the British scientific establishment (mainly Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum of Natural History) and planted in the ground, to deceive the world’s greatest scientists of the time (1912-1916) into believing that the remains of an ape-man, a missing link, had been found. Piltdown Man was just one of many frauds committed by Dawson over a time frame of approximately twenty-five years (more on Dawson-as-culprit to come). (See also The Piltdown Forgery by Joseph Weiner, The Piltdown Man Hoax: Case Closed by Miles Russell and Unraveling Piltdown by John Evangelist Walsh).  Continue Reading…