Shop

Ratings & Reviews

• 
  By Ernest Osborn

  Jun 3, 2006
  "Re: Another Creationist B. S." Mr. Rosario, I read your review and your thoughts seem to be pretty void of anything more than just blind sided hearsay. I would be more than happy to "explain" any of my information to you if you are interested. As for some of your comments, I will address them now. For any other information or debates please feel free to contact me, for this is not the place for it. First we can look at your comment on heavier elements. You say: "heavier elements are perfectly possible thanks to the process of fusion in stars", this I do not debate, but we are not talking about "now", we are talking about The Big Bang. Stars were not there. If you look, during the Big Bang there was "nothing", so stars were not there to create the heavier elements. Once more, all elements cannot be created by only two. The BB suggests that all the elements that we know of, and any we do not, were created by two. Now for the famous... More > reply to the angular momentum statement. I love to hear this and I will more than happily shoot it down again. :) Your statement: "there are different phenomena which can account for the bizarre behavior in planets (collisions with big objects, asteroids or big objects getting trapped in the Sun's or planets' orbits, etc.) How many things can happen in the Solar Systems during many millions or billions of years?" Ok, lets take a look at this, if we follow the Big Bang, we know that "absolutely nothing" (this comes from the theory itself) exploded into everything. Space is a frictionless environment. Henceforth, if everything all of a sudden exploded, everything would move at its current speed without slowing (due to the absence of friction), and nothing would say "catch up" to each other. As far as the millions and millions of years, this statement needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes this may just be an "escape goat" to hide the fact that "we just do not know yet"; instead of saying this, sometimes things can be pulled out of our metaphorical rectum to fill in the blanks (“fluff material”). To make a theory, law or factual, it must be observed or proven in some way. If not, it remains a theory. There are just too many faults in this theory to not be totally revamped. I am not knocking “theories” for they are needed to grow into those very laws and facts we have been accustomed to, but the actual current model of the BB can be compared to a self repaired paradox. As the act in question happens it creates certain laws, but these very laws that it created are the actual downfall that does not even allow the very act in question to occur. Ok, one more, your statement of: "macroevolution is impossible because no one has seen, for example, an animal of a completely different species come out of dog. Of course, evolution since its very beginning posited that this macroevolution does not take place in a very short period of time, but takes many dozens or hundred thousand years to happen." Ok, ... if I was to throw 100 pigs off a cliff for 100,000,000 years...would the pigs start to grow wings or would I just have a lot of dead pigs on the bottom of the cliff? I do believe things can "adapt" to a certain degree, but as far as a complete change of species....common sense alone (with the help of my previous pig model) shows otherwise. Your review was written in a very defensive manner; maybe I hit a soft spot. :) The idea is not to argue back and forth, but to help one another as people to gain a better understanding. What I find, is that a lot of people that do not work together end up right back where they started. They put the blinders on and do not continue forward. Albert Einstein took his blinders off, even though he was looked down on for most of his life, and he progressed us further. I hope in the future Mr. Rosario you will ask questions and possibly even work together to get an even better understanding instead of "staying with the old folklore". Respectfully, Ernest Osborn< Less
  Report as inappropriate
• 
  By Pedro Rosario

  Jan 11, 2006
  "Another Creationist B. S." I am not a fan of the Big Bang Theory. I am more inclined to Plasma Cosmology, but this is an occasion I'll have to play the devil's advocate. This book called The Big Bang or the Big Blunder is a big blunder itself. For example, it mentions the distribution of light elements in the univese. Although I agree with a very small part of his criticisms, he does not take into account that the abundance of heavier elements is perfectly possible thanks to the process of fusion in stars, fusion caused by plasma present in the universe, among many other factors. The author says that such a fusion from light elements to heavier elements is simply impossible. About the formation of the Solar System, the author commits a very similar mistake. It says that the phenomena of the way planets and satelites spin or orbit around the Sun, is evidence that the current theory of the Solar System is simply wrong. Scientists do take into account these facts in the Solar... More > System in the present theory. Of course, the Solar System behaved differently when it came to be from the way it behaves today, and there are different phenomena which can account for the bizarre behavior in planets (collisions with big objects, asteroids or big objects getting trapped in the Sun's or planets' orbits, etc.) How many things can happen in the Solar Systems during many millions or billions of years? Needless to say, like all Creationists, he uses the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to justify the intervention of a Supreme Being. However, this 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy increases in closed systems. But the Earth is not an absolute closed system, and while the Sun is giving us energy, such an energy is enough to build life on Earth. Plants, for instance, use much of their energy from the Sun, animals take their energy from plants, or from other animals who eat plants. This energy is used constructively building at a cell level. A perfect example of how order can come from disorder. In the case of non-living beings, it has been shown in labs, time and time again that order can also arise from disorder. We cannot forget, for instance, Stanley Miller's experiments that from certain simpler compounds, with the help of water and electicity, complex proteins can arise. Other experiments have shown that the combination of certain elements and compounds at random can effectively create well ordered behavior. Bernard cells, hurricanes, lightning, all are examples of order that arise out of disorder. Even the Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction is a perfect example of order coming out of disorder, which can be carried out in any lab. Take bromate, potassium bromide, potassium bromate, cerium ammonium nitrate, and sulfuric acid. Place them in a beaker at pure random. Everyone will see that immediately it begins self-organizing into repeating cycle of reactions. It is so well ordered and reliable that it can be used to tell time. So, again, the oversimplification of this view of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is nothing more than the usual Creationist misunderstanding of science. Finally, there is the grossest oversimplification of evolution I have ever seen in my entire life. He says that macroevolution is impossible because no one has seen, for example, an animal of a completely different species come out of dog. Of course, evolution since its very beginning posited that this macroevolution does not take place in a very short period of time, but takes many dozens or hundred thousand years to happen. But of course, this is not valid for the author for some reason. This is the worst pape against the Big Bang that I have ever seen, and for being an astrophysicist, the author does not know science. Recommendation: Do not buy this, it is a waste of time.< Less
  Report as inappropriate