Some Thoughts on Modern Scientific Theories

Not Known or Proven to be True

theory - {noun} thee·oh·ree - an idea that is suggested or presented
as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

Something that everyone must keep in mind when discussing ideas concerning certain "scientific theories" and other things of this nature is that by definition most of the "knowns" of science are not really "known" at all but are someone's theory of how nature is constructed and functions. Very seldom will you find any proven facts in science and certainly not if it is called a "theory." Some of these theories that you will see have no supporting evidence, some will have a little, and some will have a lot, but regardless of how much or how little supporting evidence there may be, a theory is still just that, a theory, and by definition a theory is a group of unproved assumptions.

Theories are by nature very volatile things that can change in a moments notice whenever new evidence arises to refute the accepted norm or some powerful scientific person makes a new assumption based on any reason he chooses and so changes the paradigm that the theory rests upon. When there is factual proof and not just inferred evidence of an event it then ceases to be a theory and enters the realm of actual knowledge of reality. However, most of our knowledge of the physical laws of nature of this universe all come under the auspices of theory and not known truth.

Based on this fact, and it is a fact, we can look at some of the modern theories concerning the universe and this planet and make determinations for ourselves if the theories have any substance or if they are just wishful thinking on the part of the particular scientist who formed the theory to begin with and then maintained by those who followed in that person's footsteps.

What we will do is look at some of the specific theories and also a few of the more generalized ideas in others. In all of these we will look for fatal flaws, which I will define as being some known or proven fact, whether from mathematics, geology, cosmology, biology, or any other source, that by itself dooms a particular theory to the realm of guesswork and not fact. You may be surprised at how many fatal flaws appear in the major theories that the scientific establishment holds as fact today.

1. Uniformitarianism
This is a theory that is slowly falling by the wayside, and rightfully so, but in order for certain other theories to still be believed and accepted, this one must also be believed and accepted to some extent by those who hold to these certain other theories or the very framework for their theories fall apart.

Basically what the theory of Uniformitarianism (it is also called Gradualism) says is that the natural geological processes that change the earth in the present have operated in the past at the same gradual rate. Nothing has happened in the past that is not occurring today. Everything we see today is the same thing that has been going on since the universe was first formed, whether it was formed by accident or by divine command. The mountains slowly push up over millions of years and are slowly worn away by wind, rain, and other weather phenomena over the succeeding millions of years. The oceans constantly wear away the shore trying to gain a little more room and the rivers are constantly taking away room from the ocean by depositing debris and silt at the mouths of rivers. These are some of the ideas that form this theory. There is some truth to this as many things in nature do take place at a very slow pace.

Unhappily for the overall theory however, the geological record shows that the greatest majority of episodes of mountain building, irruptions of the sea, etc., have all been of a catastrophic nature. There are also many geological things that cannot be explained by any but catastrophic change. That some things do occur over long periods of time is certain, but when there are changes in the geologic and fossil records, these changes are for the most part sudden and complete, with new fauna and flora or a brand new set of mountains, lakes, rivers, etc., suddenly coming into existence. There is no evidence of a slow change from one form to another in anything of nature. There is no missing link!

One of the strongest supporters of the theory of Uniformitarianism was Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), a Scottish geologist. He was also a good friend and mentor of Charles Darwin. We will discuss this in more detail later in the section on the theory of evolution. The geological records however do not support this theory but in fact shows that most of the changes on the earth have been of the catastrophic nature.

2. Ice Ages
One of the offshoots of the theory of Uniformitarianism is what is called ice ages. The Ice Age Theory was readily accepted and promulgated by Charles Lyell because it explained many things that Lyell could find no other explanation for without resorting to catastrophic action of some sort, and he was extremely reluctant to do that. He used the newly described ice age theory to explain, among other things, the many erratics (rocks and boulders from a range some distance from where they are found) even though many are found in much higher elevations than any glaciation has ever occurred. Unhappily, what he failed to consider was that glaciers, like the water they are, always flow downhill. This fact is demonstrated daily by existing glaciers. None of them flow uphill nor can they do so. Many of the erratics are found at elevations where it is impossible for a glacier to carry them. Also the other evidence of glaciation, such as striations in surrounding rocks, are often missing around these erratics. So the evidence does not support the action of a glacier carrying these stones and boulders to their current locations.

Some scientists believe that there have been four basic "ice ages" with several interim "ice epochs" of shorter duration. These say that these ice ages and ice epochs were caused by unknown conditions surrounding the earth, although they are willing to guess at all kinds of possible conditions that would produce the necessary cooling of the planet. They also say that these ice ages and epochs are accompanied by glaciation that covers almost the entire planet at the same time. The glaciations and the interpretation given to these events by scientists are the strongest evidence of this theory.

One theory has it that there are large clouds of interstellar dust that the earth occasionally enters as the Milky Way Galaxy makes its trek around the universe and that these dust clouds reduce the amount of sunlight that falls on the earth, thereby cooling it and causing the ice ages.

What this theory fails to take into account is that in order for all the water that eventually becomes the ice in the glaciers to somehow be transported into the atmosphere where it then can become precipitation, in this case snow, that will fall and remain on the ground to become a glacier, the earth must first be heated and not cooled. Without that moisture somehow getting into the atmosphere there can be no glaciation.

There are several mechanisms by which water may enter the atmosphere, but for the huge quantities required for the observed extensive glaciations the only one that suffices is a sudden (read catastrophic) large increase in the temperature of the earth and its climate. Without an increase in that temperature, which will in turn cause massive evaporation from bodies of water, insufficient moisture enters the atmosphere and therefore this a fatal flaw of this theory for the reasons for an ice age.

If the earth entered some area of cooling in our galaxy that would cause a global cooling effect, for whatever reason, there would be no trigger for glaciation. If the earth cooled sufficiently to cause massive freezing in accordance with this particular theory, all the bodies of water (and everything else) would merely freeze in their current locations and none of the observed glaciation would occur.

Another big problem with the ice age theory is that there can be found no solid evidence that the entire planet, or even the greater part of it, has ever been covered by ice at the same moment in time. That ice has been over most places on the earth at one time or another is quite clear from the evidence. That it was all here at the same time is not. There is some evidence that some kind of aberrant atmospheric situations have caused global cooling several times in ages past, but those situations did not cause a general and widespread condition of ice on the surface of the earth. Very probably these situations were caused by or were subsequent to massive volcanic eruptions that spread much dust into the atmosphere that blocked sunlight and thereby cooled the atmosphere causing its accumulated moisture to fall as snow. That has even happened on a much smaller scale in modern times. The reasons for the sudden simultaneous eruptions of the earth's volcanoes is no longer a mystery but most scientists reject the evidence. 1

Taking note of the growth of glaciers that abound today, you will see that they start in cold latitudes or at mountain heights and progress toward the warmer latitudes and lower altitudes. This is quite understandable as the colder latitudes and high elevations is where the snow falls most abundantly and fails to melt in the warmer months of the year. This will cause a snow pack to build, and if it builds sufficiently, then gravity will cause it to flow away its point of greatest density. In other words, snow and ice, just as the water of which they are composed, always flows downhill.

Looking at the geological records of ice scrapings and striations that show the movement of glaciers in the supposed ice ages, this downhill movement is of course seen. The direction and even the depth of the ice can be determined with a good degree of accuracy. What the record shows is amazing to most scientists and they have so far failed to recognize what it is saying.

These various scrapings and striations, which are found worldwide, inevitably show that the glaciation that caused them started at some single point and spread out in all directions just as do the polar ice caps of today. The poles being the places that get the least energy from the sun during their winter exposures this makes perfect sense. The ice would start somewhere in their vicinity and proceed south from the extant North Pole and north from the extant South Pole.

The aforementioned markings that have been found worldwide, and from which the scientists have therefore drawn the conclusion that the ice ages covered the earth in its entirety and simultaneously, have an accompanying feature that is a very clear indicator of what was actually happening at the time they were being produced. When a point of origin is located by tracing the markings back, around the earth at 180 degrees is another point of origin with its accompanying scrapings and striations. That is if the place on the other side of the earth is not ocean.

That indicates strongly that the poles of the earth were at the time of the particular glaciation of which the scientists are looking were at or near the point of origin of that particular glaciation instead of their location today. This could only be if the earth somehow tilted, flipped, or otherwise had its rotational axis moved by some means. The order of magnitude of energy required to produce this effect is so massive that most scientists refuse to believe that it is possible. Yet there is much evidence that says this has happened, not just once, but many times in the history of this planet. It has also happened many times in the memory of man and has been recorded in various books, not the least of which is the one called the Bible.

The upshot of all of this real evidence is that the earth’s polar axis has been in many places during the life of this planet and man knows all about it. It has happened in the age of man and been the cause of many failures of the ancient societies that are recorded in history and even more societies of which we have never heard.

The geological record is replete with the evidence of this movement of the axial poles too, such as coral formations in the polar seas at depths below the reach of sunlight. This is not where corals grow. They are warm water creatures that need plenty of sunlight at shallow depths to survive. These corals found in the polar seas at one time lived in warm tropical oceans just as their species do today. This is strong evidence that these cold polar seas at one time were much nearer the equator than they are today and that leads to one conclusion. The polar axis of the earth today is not as it was when those animals were alive.

There are the frozen remains of animals found in many places where the ground stays frozen all year round also, and these animals are those who normally live in much warmer climes, such as elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotami, horses, etc. There are entire islands in the polar seas that are composed of the fossilized bones of these types of animals. When partial or intact bodies are found frozen, the food the animal required is often found in their mouths and stomachs and was in the process of being eaten and digested when the animal died. No slow extinction or evolutionary selection here, but sudden, catastrophic death and sudden catastrophic climatic changes that immediately froze their bodies and preserved them for us to see their remains today.

There are great forests of warm climate trees broken, burned, and piled high, and they too are found under the polar seas. All of this evidence is overlooked or explained away by those who refuse to see the truth of what it really means, and that is the state of our scientific establishment.

So the evidence of the ice ages melts away when looked at with a critical eye. In fact, most of the earth appears to have been covered with ice, but the areas covered were polar areas at that particular time due to the position of the polar axis and not because of some worldwide ice age or epoch. The end of these eras was brought about by some event that caused the axis to assume a new position and was accompanied by other worldwide catastrophic destruction and mass extinctions of flora and fauna, sinking of some land masses and the upthrusting of others.

3. Extinction of the Dinosaurs
This has to have some of the most unscientific reasoning for happening that I have ever heard. There is even one theory that all the dinosaurs died because they were constipated. This idea came about because of the evidence of the change in flora that accompanied the extinction, and the people who put forth the idea thought that the new flora was not edible by the dinosaurs, so they got constipated and died. Understanding that mass extinctions, changes in the earth’s polar axis, and other catastrophic events all happen at the same time, it can be seen that some external event was the common cause of all of them.

The accepted theory from several years ago was that somehow the climate of the earth changed and the dinosaurs could not adapt fast enough, which has a little truth in it, and therefore they were "selected" out of existence by the processes of evolution, which is about as false as it can get. We will talk about Darwin’s absurd theory shortly, but let it suffice for now that there was some catastrophic event that caused the deaths of so many of the earth’s creatures 60 million years ago, and it was not the first time that it had happened. This catastrophic event also changed the earth’s climate, but the change was not a slow and steady one but a sudden event that nothing could have "adapted" to. The very geological record that Darwin and Lyell thought would prove their theories shows the correct sequence of catastrophic events and in fact has become the strongest evidence against them.

Fossilized bones of many creatures, not just dinosaurs, have been found in strata of the earth that have been variously dated. The strangest bit of information about all of these fossilized bones is that they are from eras of from millions of years past down to the latest at just a few thousands of years ago with large gaps of time in between them. Also most of the bones show evidence of some catastrophic occurrence that caused the death of the animal. In other words, the animal did not die from natural causes, accident, or predation, but from some geological catastrophe. The geological record invariably shows that these catastrophes are not localized events but are global in scope. This is as true of sea life as it is of dry ground living animals.

The big question for the evolutionists is that with all of the animals that have certainly lived and died in the interim between those mass extinctions and the modern day, where are the fossilized bones of the modern animals? The animals, including the famous dinosaurs, had their bones almost immediately buried, frozen, and otherwise preserved, yet modern animal carcasses and bones are recycled into the biosphere by the normal actions of nature. That makes quite a statement about conditions at the time of the extinctions versus what we see happening today. The natural decay processes of nature did not have time to work on the fossils that are being found, yet they have plenty of time, in just a few short years yet, to totally erase any evidence that an animal of today ever lived, including hair, bones, antlers, etc.

4. Big Bang
The theory of the Big Bang, which states generally that at the beginning of what we know as the universe there was a cosmological egg or super atom that had within itself all the matter that exists in the universe. This "egg" exploded and thus the Big Bang.

In order for me to accept this theory, the scientists that hold to it must first be able to answer these three questions with solid and irrefutable evidence.

1. What exploded?
2. Where did it come from?
3. Why did it explode?

If those three questions can be answered satisfactorily, then I will believe that is actually the start of the universe.

A couple of things that the establishment has discovered that they believe "proves" their theory are:

    Excess temperature at 2040 MHz (meaning a background radio signal that should be leftover from the Big Bang).

    Red shift in the starlight impinging on the earth.

That Item One exists is a fact that is beyond refute, but that it is the leftovers from the "Big Bang" has yet to be demonstrated satisfactorily to anyone. Could it be? Yes. Is it absolutely what they say it is? No way! There are several other very plausible explanations for this radio energy static in space.

The red shift of the starlight is something else altogether. The theory is that light, having a constant velocity, can only change in frequency (red shift as its source goes away from the viewer and blue shift as it approaches). This is similar to and can be compared to the sound you hear from a high-speed train as it approaches and then passes your location. That is called the Doppler Shift and is a very useful measuring tool in radar and other distance, speed, and range determining tools. According to the hypothesis light itself can not gain or lose any velocity based on the velocity of its source. (It has already been amply demonstrated that the speed of light is dependent on the characteristics of the media through which it is traveling and that its path is also affected by gravity.)

According to the cosmologists, all of the starlight impinging on the earth, with minor exceptions, shows a red shift, meaning that all of the stars and galaxies in the universe are receding from us at some velocity. The further away these stars and galaxies are the faster they are supposed to be receding. They say that if the Big Bang in fact occurred as they say it must have, then that is to be expected and all of the matter in space would be traveling away from the epicenter of the original blast in just that fashion. They explain this by using a balloon on which is painted dots. As the balloon is inflated the dots do grow away from each other and the common center.

Oops! Fatal flaw! These same cosmologists have many pictures taken from their observatories showing galaxies in collision with one another and some of these collisions appear to be occurring at a ninety-degree angle and some head on. That is not exactly moving away from each other, for none of the dots on that balloon will ever collide with another dot!

Another fatal flaw is that there are some galaxies that show a definite blue shift in their spectrums. This indicates that that particular galaxy is moving toward us at some velocity instead of going the way it should have gone because of the energy, velocity, and direction imparted from the Big Bang. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Big Bang occurred and everything is moving away from us as it should according to the physical laws of the universe (as known), or the Big Bang did not occur and there is some other explanation for the red shift.

If the "expanding balloon" analogy has any validity, how are those galaxies colliding? If all of the matter in space has an outward velocity imparted by the Big Bang then these galaxies could not be behaving in the manner in which they do regardless of the effects of gravity.

So the "expanding balloon" analogy of an exploding universe resulting from the "Big Bang" falls of its own weight. Also consider that if you look closely, as that balloon expands, all the dots on it do appear to be moving away from one another. However, as they move away from one another they also move away from the common center. If something had exploded that would be the case in the universe also. Just as Fourth of July fireworks have a shell of material moving outward from the center of the explosion with an empty space at the origin, so the universe would be. If the "Big Bang" had indeed occurred this "empty space" would be detectable by the current state of astronomical instruments and would show a red shift on one side, a blue shift on the other, with no shift to either side when observed from a point other than the epicenter of the explosion. Yet there are no areas of space like that. Every direction a telescope is pointed reveals an almost uniform distribution of galaxies and matter and most of it shows a red shift. There is a big blank spot in the "north" but the stars all around it show the standard red shift. There is no variance in spectrum shift as would be expected if that were the point of the explosion. Ergo, no "Big Bang."

This ignored fact lends credence to the statement that Hubble's equation for an expanding universe is wrong also and leads to the possibility of things other than distance/speed relationships being the reason for the observed red of star light.

From the figures given in the speeds of these receding galaxies, the red shift appears to be a function of the inverse square law. If a galaxy is twice as far away from us as some other galaxy, the measured red shift appears to indicate that the one furthest away is receding at four times the speed as a closer galaxy and as you double the distance, the speed increases by a factor of four. That suggests to me that maybe the red shift is not a function of the velocity of the galaxies at all but is rather a function of their distance in the intervening space from us.

This is something that can be tested with some degree of ease and accuracy given the ability to mount missions to Mars and deep space that we have gained in the last few years. A LASER device could be sent on one of these distant missions with a program to direct its beam back to the earth. Along side the LASER on Mars (or some other distant point) would be a device to check the spectrum of the LASER as it transmitted its light (control function) and that data be transmitted to earth. On the earth would be a receiver for the LASER light from Mars that would test the spectrum as the light arrives. Then the transmitted spectrum data could be compared with the received spectrum data to see if there was any difference. All it would take is a minute red shift of the data from the distant transmitter to prove this was an effect of distance rather than speed. Even though the distance between Mars and the earth is anything but interstellar, it should be enough to give some detectable red shift if distance rather than velocity is what is causing the red shift.

I strongly suspect that there is some phenomenon other than distance that is causing this observed red shift. That other cause may well be the gravitational fields encountered by light as it travels through space. It is an observed and proven fact that light is "bent," or refracted by gravitational fields of relatively small magnitudes, such as that of our sun and other even smaller planetary bodies. Without knowing the strength and cumulative effect of the gravitational fields in space, no one can say with any certainty whether the red shift is caused by them or not.

A question for the Scientific Community: Has there been enough data collected from the time this red shift was first detected and recognized to go back and look at some of the original data, compare it to the current data, and see if there is any difference in the amount of shift that is seen? If this shift is in fact from the speed of the recession of galaxies due to the "Big Bang," then every galaxy in the universe should be accelerating by some amount and that acceleration should be a factor of distance also. If the acceleration is detected, then maybe the Hubble equation is somewhat correct. I doubt very seriously if that acceleration is there.

Another serious problem with this expanding universe postulated by scientists and explained by the red shift is that if in fact their statement about all the galaxies moving away from us is correct, then that puts the earth right smack dab at the point of the original "big bang." Casual observation refutes that completely. The earth is a very small and minor planet revolving around an insignificant star located way out in the dim reaches of one arm of a spiral galaxy called the Milky Way.

So with this expansion in such serious question, the age of the universe as applied by the scientific community also becomes quite suspect.

5. Biological evolution
This theory was made famous by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and his book, Origin of the Species. He developed the information that led to his theory on natural selection on a worldwide tour for that purpose on the good ship HMS Beagle. His theory of natural selection was an outgrowth of his reading the book An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), by the British economist Thomas Robert Malthus and the manner in which his observations disputed the theory of Uniformitarianism as expressed by his mentor and good friend Charles Lyell in his three-volume work Principles of Geology.

Although Darwin’s observations flatly disagreed with much that he had learned from Lyell, he was still convinced that the theory of Uniformitarianism had to be so in order for his own theory of natural selection to be correct. Without the extremely long periods of time involved in the theory of Uniformitarianism his theory would not work. He made a comment in the preface to his work that should anyone not be an adherent of Lyell’s theory, then that person should not even read his work and since it agreed completely with and was supported by Lyell’s theory. Unhappily for him, he did not know just how true this statement was to prove to be. Both theories are now shown to be fallacious and without merit.

Darwin and Lyell were in full agreement that even though most of their contentions about each theory were pure speculation at the time they were made that the geologic record would prove them right in the end. They were absolutely sure that the fossil and geological records to yet be discovered would bear them out in their entireties. This was not to be and exactly the opposite has proven to be true!

If the theory of gradualism was true, meaning that nothing is different today than it was in antiquity and all things that happened then are still occurring today, then we should be seeing new species emerging all the time.

If the theory of evolution by "natural selection" as formulated by Darwin is true, then we should be able to identify multiple intermediate species on the way to becoming a new species and we should have already been able to identify old species that had transmuted (evolved) into new species. None of these cases exist in nature today however.

There have been spontaneous mutations observed in nature that have led to a new species that lacked viability with its originating species, but those mutations had nothing to do with the theory of evolution. They usually occurred (in the case of flowering sweetpeas) after some event on the sun that generated severe sunspots. These sunspots are known to produce large amounts of various types of radiation that can affect living tissue.

In the laboratory mutations in brine flies that have led to nonviability with the preceding species have been caused by exposure to X-rays. Another type of radiation that is known to affect living tissue.

In bomb craters from several wars of the last century, plants that were unknown to science were discovered growing. These plants were not cross-fertile with any other known plants and so constituted a new, or at least unknown, species of plant life. Since they were growing in areas of heavy habitation, it is extremely unlikely that they were unknowns that the wind blew in, but more likely were mutations caused by the extreme heat and pressure applied to seeds that had been in that place as the bombs burst. Mutations in DNA have been observed to occur under extreme environments of that nature and so probably that was the case here too. The major point to be considered here though is that this bomb burst is a catastrophic condition that Darwin totally denies as being a factor in his origin of the species. The time taken to modify these plants was on the order of microseconds and not millions or billions of years.

That generation of new species, that has been demonstrated under conditions of artificial abnormal radiation which can also be considered as a catastrophic condition, is possible. But take note that after the above mutations, the species that was mutated was still in the same class of the basic animal or plant from which it mutated. There were no changes exhibited or produced that would lead to the belief that further exposure to excessive radiation would produce a completely different strata of life, such as rodents or other small mammals "evolving" into apes and apes into man. When monkeys mutate, they become a different kind of monkey.

To sum it all up, Yahuwah created everything we can see and detect by any other means through Yahushua His Son and our Savior. All the evidence points directly at that as being the only intelligent conclusion that can be made.

1. Velikovsky, Immanuel - Worlds in Collision

C.F. Castleberry