Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Why Evolution Is Science Fiction

Artist’s depiction of the Big Bang Inflationary Model.

The "big bang". Evolution science fiction that proclaims everything was created from nothing for no reason with the help of the laws of physics which didn't exist before the universe was created. Does this make sense to you?
This is an extensive article that refutes the "big bang" and all of its variations.

There are no easily delineated limits to science fiction. Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures. The settings for science fiction are often contrary to those of consensus reality.

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes and extraterrestrial life.

Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author.

Science fiction elements include:

A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.

Scientific principles, ie theories, that are new or that contradict accepted physical laws, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel or communication.

Other universes or dimensions and travel between them. (String Theory.)

As a means of understanding the world through speculation, ie theories, and storytelling, science fiction has antecedents which go back to an era when the dividing line separating the mythological from the historical tends to become somewhat blurred.

Hard science fiction, or "hard SF", is characterized by rigorous attention to accurate detail in the natural sciences, especially physics, astrophysics, and chemistry, or on accurately depicting worlds that more advanced technology may make possible. Some accurate predictions of the future come from the hard science fiction subgenre, but numerous inaccurate predictions have emerged as well.

Ask yourself how is it possible to accurately depict "worlds" with more advanced technology when none have been discovered. An accurate prediction must be confirmed with accurate science not science fiction.

Predictions of the future that are not accurate are innacurate because the theories are NOT acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The "big Bang Theory" is a prime example of an INACURRATE theory that has been acquired through the "red shift" observation of light. Yes there is a "red shift" but it has been used to promote a unscientific theory of a universe that "evolved".

The "Big Bang Theory" is science fiction.

This theory is taught in public schools as fact. The government has instituted a religion called evolution that denies a creator.)
Creation Audio and Videos That Declare The Gloy Of GOD The Creator
The Big Bang Never Happened

We're told that our Universe formed in a Big Bang event, about 14 billion years
ago. Science programs, textbooks, and other media claim that there's lots of evidence
for this. But is this true? In this presentation, we'll examine the Big Bang theory.

We'll see that it not only lacks solid evidence, it also contradicts several important laws of science. Overall we'll see that the Big Bang is not a good scientific model. Instead, it has all the characteristics of a religious belief system for atheists -- one that is believed in spite of the evidence, because the alternative (Biblical Creation) implies accountability to a Creator. (1 Hr 10 Min Video)

“Look at the facts,” says Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile. “The basic big bang model fails to predict what we observe in the universe in three major ways.” The temperature of today’s universe, the expansion of the cosmos, and even the presence of galaxies, have all had cosmologists scrambling for fixes. “Every time the basic big bang model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on something new—inflation, dark matter and dark energy,” Scarpa says.

Even with all of these known problems, admissions, and discrepancies, the “standard theory” continues being taught as fact throughout this country to young people—from first grade to college age.

When one steps away from all the Big Bang propaganda, and carefully examines the foundation on which the concept itself rests, there is legitimate reason for concern.

The theory, it appears, is haphazardly nestled on, and teeters on the brink of, some incredible assumptions—“incredible” in that each unstable assumption is built on top of another equally volatile supposition. It seems that, as this stack mounts, each subsequent assumption casts a shadow that hides from public view the visible uncertainties of the preceding one. Like an onion, as each layer is stripped back, it leaves only another layer to be viewed.

The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws governing it? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology. “If there was no law, how did the Universe appear?”

What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe....

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations.

Imagine that physicists finally discover all the basic waves and their particles, and all the basic laws, and unite everything in one equation. We can then ask, “Why that equation?”

It is fashionable now to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing. There had to be quantum laws to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws?

There is no escape from the superultimate questions: Why is there something rather than nothing, and why is the something structured the way it is?

At first, the absence of a beginning appears to be an advantage to the scientific approach. There are no awkward starting conditions to deduce or explain. But this is an illusion.

We still have to explain why the Universe took on particular properties—its rate expansion, density, and so forth—at an infinite time in the past.

Science, as impressive as it is, cannot provide the solutions to such problems.

“Question: Why did the universe not become a black hole?” (emp. added). Why not indeed? Or “In order to save the Big Bang cosmology, are we to believe that the...physics of black holes does not work for the universe?”. If all the matter and energy in the Universe were packed into a point “many billions of times smaller than a single proton,” why would that not constitute a black hole?

Multi universe science fiction.

Speculation that inside a black hole it’s possible for a small region to, as it were, sprout into a new universe. We don’t see it, but it inflates into some new dimension.... What that would mean is that universes which can therefore produce lots of black holes, would have more progeny, because each black hole can then lead a new universe; whereas a universe that didn’t allow stars and black holes to form would have no progeny. Therefore Smolin claims that the ensemble of universes may evolve not randomly but by some Darwinian selection, in favor of the potentially complex universes.

We have no idea about the physics at these extreme densities, so we have no idea whether the physics of the daughter universe would resemble that of the parent universe. Its all science fiction based on bad science theories.

Why shouldn’t our universe be like that?”—applies to more than just Dr. Smolin’s particular theory, "cosmological natural selection." It applies across the board to any number of theories: “If a picticular theory is right, why shouldn’t our universe be like that theory?” Which is exactly one of the points we are trying to get across. The simple fact is, in many of these “off the wall” theories, the Universe is not “like that.”

There is, needless to say, no evidence whatsoever in favor of this preposterous theory. The universes that are bubbling up are unobservable. So, too, are the universes that have been bubbled up and those that will bubble up in the future. Smolin’s theories cannot be confirmed by experience. Or by anything else. What law of nature could reveal that the laws of nature are contingent?

Contemporary cosmologists feel free to say anything that pops into their heads. Unhappy examples are everywhere: absurd schemes to model time on the basis of the complex numbers, as in Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time; bizarre and ugly contraptions for cosmic inflation; universes multiplying beyond the reach of observation; white holes, black holes, worm holes, and naked singularities; theories of every stripe and variety, all of them uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial. The physicists carry on endlessly because they can.

Redshift and Expansion Problems

The Hubble constant cannot be measured exactly, like the speed of light or the mass of an electron. Aside from questions about its possible variation in the past, there is simply no consensus on its value today. “Actually the precise value of H0 is the subject of dispute”

Redshifts are not, in and of themselves, a sign of a star’s age or distance, and yet redshifts have become intrinsically entwined with how we determine not just the speed of any given object, but also how old and how far away it is. If the interpretation of redshift is wrong, then all the proof that the universe is expanding will disappear. It would undermine everything that’s been mapped out about the heavens.

Not only would the big bang theory come crashing down, but scientists wouldn’t be able to determine how the nearest galaxy is moving, much less how the whole universe behaves.

Quasi stellar radio sources

At the end of World War II, astronomers discovered places in the sky where charged particles moving in a magnetic field sent out strong signals in the radio portion of the spectrum. Twenty years later, Alan Sandage and Thomas Mathews identified the source of such signals with optically discernible points in space. These are the quasars—quasi stellar radio sources.

Maarten Schmidt discovered that their spectral lines were shifted massively to the red. If Hubble’s law were correct, quasars should be impossibly far away, hurtling themselves into oblivion at the far edge of space and time. But for more than a decade, the American astronomer Halton Arp has drawn the attention of the astronomical community to places in the sky where the expected relationship between redshift and distance simply fails. Embarrassingly enough, many quasars seem bound to nearby galaxies. The results are in plain sight: there on the photographic plate is the smudged record of a galaxy, and there next to it is a quasar, the points of light lined up and looking for all the world as if they were equally luminous.

These observations do not comport with standard Big Bang cosmology. If quasars have very large redshifts, they must (according to Hubble’s law) be very far away; if they seem nearby, then either they must be fantastically luminous or their redshift has not been derived from their velocity.... But whatever the excuses, a great many cosmologists recognize that quasars mark a point where the otherwise silky surface of cosmological evidence encounters a snag.

That “snag” is what Halton Arp’s work is all about. Compounding the problem related to the quasars is the concept of what might be termed “premature aging.” Cosmologists now place the Big Bang event at 13.7 billion years ago (see Brumfiel, 2003, 422:109; Lemonick, 2003, 161:45), and the beginnings of galaxy formation somewhere between 800,000 to 1,000,000 years after that (Cowen, 2003, 163:139). Hence, radiation coming from an object 13 billion light-years away supposedly began its journey approximately a billion years after the Big Bang, when the object was somewhat less than a billion years old. Such distant objects should show relatively few signs of development, but observations within the last decade have threatened such concepts. For example, the Röentgen Satellite found giant clusters of quasars more than 12 billion light-years away (Cowen, 1991a), and astronomers have detected individual quasars at 12-13 billion light-years away (Cowen, 1991b; 2003).

The problem is that quasars—those very bright, super-energetic star-like objects—are thought to have formed after their hypothetical energy sources and resident galaxies had emerged. Hence, very distant quasars and quasar clusters represent too much organization too early in the history of the Universe. This is indeed problematic. As one scientist put it, the Big Bang theorist suddenly “finds himself in the position of a cement supplier who arrives after the house is already built”
(Yes the "house" was allready built. Psalm 19 King James Version (KJV)

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.)
A problem deals with the timing of the expansion. In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could the different parts of the universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?

God did.

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isaiah 42:5

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 44:24

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 45:12

Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 48:13

And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?
Isaiah 51:13

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Jeremiah 10:12

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Job 9:8

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:7

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness [was] under his feet.
Psalms 18:9

Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Psalms 104:2

Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
Psalms 144:5

He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness [was] under his feet.
2 Samuel 22:10

The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Zechariah 12:1
“Somehow,” the expansion conveniently started moving again, after the galaxies had time to form in a non-moving, static Universe.

According to Newton’s first law of motion, however, an object will continue in whatever state of motion it is in, unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force.

In other words, if it were sitting still, it would have to remain like that (meaning—no further expansion!). But in the Big Bang, the Universe just “picks up” and continues to expand after the galaxies finally get formed.

Ouch! The idea of a “brief hiatus” of sorts for galaxy formation is one of those ad hoc, quickly improvised hypotheses that had to be added to keep the Big Bang Theory alive. There certainly is no physical basis for it.

A “bang” does not allow for starts and stops. Once a bomb goes off, an observer hardly expects gravitation to cause the shrapnel to come back together and form clumps, no matter how near (or far) the pieces travel from the location of the initial explosion.

(This is another instance where the "big bang theory" go BUST!)


The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption.

Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so.

It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct.

Evolutionists (and those sympathetic with them) who have “put all their eggs into the inflationary theory basket” are understandably upset with the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA data and the obvious conclusions stemming from them, since this placed “two pillars of big bang theory squarely in conflict.” But the remaining alternatives are not much better.

The only feasible alternative would seem to suggest that the trigonometric calculation used to account for “cosmic expansion”—couldn’t! Such a scenario would occur only if:

(1) the radiation did not travel as far as assumed (meaning it had been released later in cosmic history than expected); (2) the famous Hubble constant were significantly larger (which would indicate that the Universe actually is younger than predicted); (3) the Universe contained more matter (which would hold back the expansion); or (4) the cosmological constant (discussed in detail later) were smaller (which would put the brakes on the current theory of cosmic acceleration).

“Missing physics”?

“You don’t see anything of the effect predicted”. In short, things right now aren’t looking very rosy for Big Bang inflationary theory.

“There are no known ways to reconcile these measurements and predictions”.

Interestingly, not so long ago, adherents of the Big Bang held to a smooth Universe, and pointed with pride to the uniform background radiation. Then they found large-scale structures, and revised their predictions.

Now, they have found infinitesimally small variations, and are hailing them as the greatest discovery of the twentieth century.

We must urge caution when a theory, claiming to be scientific, escapes falsification by continual modification with ad hoc, stopgap measures.

(When the theory does not match the observations the "big bang theory" is changed/modified and predictions revised to keep the "big bang theory" alive.)

The Big Bang is a survivor. It never is falsified—only modified. (It is been tested over and over and found to be invalid over and over so it is revised over and over.)

(By tested I mean the big bang equations have been modified to allow for a predicted outcome.

Don't place your life in the hands of an big bang equation. Don't put your trust in an equation men have devised. Don't rely on faulty data that changes all the time. Don't place your "faith" in the "big bang theory" because it never happened.

Place your faith in GOD the Creator of the universe who never changes.)

------> Equations can be manipulated ad infinitum to make “messy” theories work.

“As a general scientific principle, it is undesirable to depend crucially on what is unobservable to explain what is observable, as happens frequently in Big Bang cosmology”

The Big Bang doesn’t account for the existence of us and stars, planets and galaxies”.


The Big Bang model absolutely requires a uniform, homogeneous Universe. Isotropy (matter being spread out evenly in all directions) and homogeneity (matter being spread out uniformly) are two foundational components of the standard Big Bang Theory.

Hubble made two very important discoveries in his studies of galaxy types and distributions. He found that the universe appeared to be both isotropic (the same in all directions), and homogeneous (one volume of space is much like any other volume of space). Together, the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe make up what we call the cosmological principle: a cornerstone assumption in modern cosmology.

In describing matter on a cosmic scale, cosmologists strip the stars and planets, the great galaxies and the bright bursting supernovae, of their uniqueness as places and things and replace them with an imaginary distribution: the matter of the universe is depicted as a great but uniform and homogeneous cloud covering the cosmos equitably in all its secret places. Cosmologists make this assumption because they must. There is no way to deal with the universe object by object; the equations would be inscrutable, impossible to solve.

Having simplified the contents of the universe, the cosmologist must take care as well, and for the same reason, to strip from the matter that remains any suggestion of particularity or preference in place. The universe, he must assume, is isotropic. It has no center whatsoever, no place toward which things tend, and no special direction or axis of coordination. The thing looks much the same wherever it is observed.

The twin assumptions that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic are not ancillary but indispensable to the hypothesis of an expanding universe; without them, no conclusion can mathematically be forthcoming.

There is the question about the distribution of matter in the universe.

One of the cornerstones of the standard cosmology was the “cosmological principle,” which asserts that the universe must be homogeneous. This assumption, however, does not help much, because the universe incorporates important deviations from homogeneity, namely, stars, galaxies, and other agglomerations of matter. Hence, we must explain why the universe is so uniform on large scales and at the same time suggest some mechanism that produces galaxies.

The Universe is “lumpy.” Really lumpy! In a survey that covered one hundred-thousandth of the visible Universe, Margaret Geller and John Huchra (1989) identified a huge sheet-like structure that came to be called the “Great Wall.” It contains thousands of galaxies, and extends at least 550 million light-years across the sky. Another survey, covering one two-thousandth of visible space, showed that the Universe does appear uniform—but only on scales larger than 150 million light-years.

As it turns out, there are at least two serious problems with any suggestion that the Universe exhibits homogeneity. First, homogeneity can be defended only if one considers the matter present in the Universe at distances greater than 150 million light-years. When it comes to getting “up close and personal,” so to speak, the concept of homogeneity collapses completely.

(Again the "big bang theory" goes BUST!)

Second, a serious problem arises even when considering the matter of the Universe at distances greater than the 150-million-light-year cut-off point. A report by Saunders, et al. (1991), based on data from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS), documented beyond doubt that there is more structure on large scales than is predicted by, or possible with, the standard cold dark matter theory of galaxy formation.

("Dark Matter" is just a bandaid to cover flaws in the "big bang theory". But this is just a theory that doesn't work.)


In any Big Bang scenario—according to evolutionists’ assumptions about the initial conditions—the Universe can contain no more than 10% protons, neutrons, and other ordinary matter found in stars, planets, galaxies, etc. What makes up the rest of the matter—90+% of the Universe—is still a mystery. As one physicist put it: “Astronomers therefore have no idea of the composition of the bulk of the entire universe. So much for a fundamental understanding of the physical universe”

Cosmologists do not know what the “mysterious stuff ” is that composes “the bulk of the entire Universe.” Nor have they found any credible, direct evidence of its existence. They refer to it as “cold dark matter” [CDM] (and/or “dark energy”.

The mysterious and elusive “cold dark matter” is “cold” because it cannot interact with other matter (except gravitationally), and “dark” because it emits no detectable radiation, and therefore cannot be seen.

(This is why the evolution of the universe via the "big bang" is science fiction.)

(As I am reading this interesting article about the "big bang" theory I see we are about to go deeper and deeper into the "rabbit hole" of the "big bang" theory. It seems to me the "rabbit hole" of the "big bang" is in itself a black hole where no real scientific data exists or can be emitted. The unbeliever stands on the "event horizon" of a black hole looking in for answers to his or her existance but only finds equations and no evidence of anything to rely on.) Story Reports
The terms we use to describe its components, “dark matter” and “dark energy,” serve mainly as an expression of our ignorance.... Essentially, all we know is that dark matter clumps together, providing a gravitational anchor for galaxies and larger structures such as galaxy clusters....

To detect dark matter, scientists need to know how it interacts with normal matter. Astronomers assume that it interacts only by means of gravitation, the weakest of all the known forces of nature. If that really is the case, physicists have no hope of ever detecting it.

After seventy years of looking for it, we have no proof of the existence of dark matter, nevertheless, “nearly everyone accepts that it is real”.

The fact is, evolutionists must have this matter to support their theories. “Popular versions of the big bang model require immense amounts of dark matter existing throughout space”.

This is for two reasons. First, dark matter is necessary in order to allow for expansion and galaxy formation. If this “extra” matter did not exist, the ordinary matter of the Universe would have scattered into the empty reaches of space without ever coming together to form galaxies. Second, dark matter is mandatory for the success of the inflationary model of the origin of the Universe, and to ensure that the structure of the Universe is “flat,” thereby guaranteeing that it will continue without end.

According to evolutionary cosmologists, the baffling yet profuse substance known as dark matter is present throughout the Universe, and, in fact, is the “invisible glue that holds it all together”.

(Its not invisible glue called "dark matter" that holds the universe together.)

(Colossians 1:17

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.)

What is dark matter? “This is an unanswered question since dark matter has never been directly observed, and may not even exist.... In reality, however, the dark matter mystery remains completely unsolved after seven decades of intense study”

"He who trusts in his own heart is a fool...." Proverbs 28:26

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.'" 1 Corinthians 3:19-20

"...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14-15

Matter supposedly comes in a variety of types and forms: baryonic and non-baryonic, as well as cold and hot. Baryonic matter represents all the conventional matter (what Cline called “normal matter”) comprised of protons and neutrons. Non-baryonic dark matter is any matter not of a conventional nature—i.e., not composed of protons and neutrons.

The “cold” and “hot” designations apply to this latter form only, and have to do with its motion [slow (cold) vs. fast (hot)] in relation to gravity. According to their own studies, evolutionists have concluded that the Universe is composed of a mere 4% baryonic matter, which leaves 96% of the Universe as “dark” matter and/or “dark” energy.

“Ninety-six percent of the Universe is stuff that we’ve never seen”.

Of the unseen Universe, dark matter is believed to constitute one third (33%) of its total mass And, “the galaxy motions suggest that the dark matter mass totals at least ten times that of all the visible galaxies”. However, perhaps it would be wise to heed the evolutionists’ own warning:

Many suggestions have been made concerning the nature of the missing dark matter. Before embarking on flights of fancy, the reader should bear in mind that the astronomical evidence for a universe dominated by exotic forms of matter is slim, and the laboratory evidence for the various proposed candidates is equally slim.

Effective inflation, unless finely tuned, mandates the missing matter, yet we do not know what form it takes and so far have no evidence that it actually exists.

“...[T]he holes in our knowledge are still considerable. Researchers are confident that dark energy and dark matter are out there, but they don’t know what kind of entities they are or how to find them”.

(Keep in mind the "holes" of evolutionary theory ie "big bang" etc will be filled in with more equations and theories that cannot be verified. In this way evolutionists can continue to propogate the 'big bang" theory as fact but it is only science fiction and bad science fiction at best.) Story Reports

“The dark matter problem affects the basics of the big bang model”.

John Gribbin confirmed such a position when he wrote that dark matter, “in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems in cosmology today”.

Instead of opting for dark matter, cosmologists need to “re-tool the laws of physics,”

(This is even going further into the "rabbit hole" or the "black hole" of the "big bang". Once you fall in you can never explain your "big bang" theory with observations in the real world that dispute your invaled theory of the "big bang" "dark matter" "dark energy" etc, etc, etc.) Story Reports

The fact is, the existence of dark matter is not merely a theoretical prediction, but rather a necessary invention—one that is required to fill the gaping holes in Big Bang cosmology and its cousin, inflationary theory.

The hypothetical construct invented to investigate the theory has become the main support for the theory.

The importance of dark matter to evolutionary cosmology cannot be overstated. “Dropping dark matter out of their models would make it impossible for theorists to understand how a universe could get from the big bang to what it looks like today”.

These two issues [the existence of dark matter, and the microwave background radiation—BT/BH/BM] are fundamentally important to the evolutionary cosmologist. The missing dark matter in galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the whole universe, and the smoothness of the CMB radiation, create unassailable problems in the formation of stars and galaxies in the “early universe.” ...The important questions left unanswered, of course, concern how stars and galaxies could have originated.

Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In theory, scientists should be able to determine the fate of the Universe. In practical terms, however, there are major problems. One of the most important, as Dr. DeYoung has pointed out, is that there simply is not enough “ordinary” (observable) matter in the Universe to account for the observed gravitational forces that are holding galaxies together. Nor is there enough ordinary matter to ensure the “zero curvature” required by the inflationary concept to guarantee the continued expansion of the Universe. Thus, in an attempt to salvage their naturalistic theories of the origin of the Universe, scientists simply invented dark matter. We say “invented” because dark matter is something that has been neither seen nor measured. As one scientist put it:

So, cold dark matter is an unknown, unseen substance that is, nonetheless, essential to the process of self-creation.... Unfortunately, 90-99% of this matter is missing from the Universe. At this point, the Big Bang starts to bear striking similarities to the fable of the emperor’s invisible new clothes.

(Again the "big bang" theory goes BUST! Dark matter was invented but has never been seen nor measured. Its just an evolutionists attempt to cover up the LIE of the "big bang" theory!! Don't put your trust in "dark matter" an invention of evolution "scientists".) Story Reports

By studying the movement of stars in the disk of our Milky Way galaxy, two teams of French astronomers have concluded that what you see is what you get: The mass of the visible stars appears to account for all the material in the galactic disk. These findings, derived from data gathered by the European astrometric satellite Hipparcos, imply that the main body of our galaxy contains no “dark matter”—invisible material that astronomers believe accounts for up to 90% of the mass of the universe.

According to general relativity, all mass distorts the space around it. When light from distant objects passes close to dark matter, it should be bent—a process called gravitational lensing.... Cosmologists also know a little about how dark matter interacts with other matter. The faster a particle moves, the more energy it transfers to any particles that it collides with.

If, during the early Universe, dark matter was moving at close to the speed of light, it would have left its mark on the process by which matter clumped together to form stars and galaxies. But astronomers can watch star and galaxy formation occurring in very distant parts of the Universe, and so far they have not seen any evidence of the influence of fast-moving dark matter.

Some might criticize the research of Crézé’s team as being too small a sample in too small of a volume. Such criticism is muted, however, in a Ph.D. dissertation by Honc-Anh Pham of the Paris Observatory. She analyzed the motion of 10,000 stars in the Milky Way disk (as opposed to Crézé’s 100). Pham’s research produced a result similar to that of Crézé, et al. As Pham remarked: “These studies confirm that the dark matter [presumed to be] associated with the galactic disc in fact doesn’t exist”.

One implication of this research could be that the Milky Way Galaxy is much younger than evolutionary astronomers believe. If our galaxy were representative of other galaxies, then it also would imply a much younger Universe as a whole.


“Dark energy, despite its confusingly similar name to dark matter is a separate substance that entered the picture only in 1998. It is spread uniformly through space, exerts a negative pressure and causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate”.

Geoff Brumfiel, writing in the March 13, 2003 issue of Nature about scientists’ efforts to figure out why the Universe is expanding, observed that certain scientists have made

An extraordinary suggestion: that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, pushed outwards by some kind of phantom force for which there was no explanation. This phenomenon of dark energy seemed odd. But according to the general theory of relativity, mass and energy are equivalent. And when cosmologists looked at the amount of energy they needed to create the mysterious force, they found that it accounted perfectly for the mass still missing from their picture.

(Dark energy is another attempt to salvage the "big bang" theory of the origin of the Universe. "Scientists" ie evolutionists simply invented dark matter.) Story Reports

The famed “cosmological constant.” Albert Einstein was the first to introduce the concept of the so-called cosmological constant—which he designated by the Greek letter Lambda (Λ)—to represent this “phantom force” or “unknown form of energy.” It is—to be quite blunt—nothing more than a “fudge factor” set in place to make modern cosmology possible.

The value of lambda:

is bizarre: roughly 10-120—that is, 1 divided by 10 followed by 119 zeros! This is the smallest number ever encountered in science. Why is it not zero? How can the minimum level be tuned so precisely? If it were 10 followed by just 117 zeros, then the galaxies could not form. Extraordinary fine-tuning is needed to explain such extreme numbers....

Why is its final state so close to the zero line? How does it “know” where to end up when the scalar field starts rolling downhill in its landscape? Nobody knows the answers to these questions. They are the greatest unsolved problems in gravitation physics and astronomy.... The only consolation is that, if these observations are correct, there is now a very special value of lambda to try to explain.

A “very special value” indeed!

The cosmological term is a potential correction to the gravitational interaction. If present at all, the cosmological term is incredibly small: Its cumulative effects would show up only at the very largest length scales. However, there is no compelling understanding of why the term is small.

(No understanding. This is what evolutionists base their "faith" in the "big bang" on. Its just another FAKE equation ment to tweak another FAKE theory to deceive. This value is used to "fine tune" the big bang theory. The "big bang" theory is sounding more and more as if it was not random because of the need to tweak it more and more to try to make it a valid theory.) Story Reports


Dark energy is a more vexing problem, but the solution could lie in the nature of empty space. According to quantum theory, particles and their antiparticle equivalents are continually being created and annihilated, even in a vacuum. Some researchers have speculated that this vacuum energy could be what is accelerating the Universe’s expansion. But theoretical predictions for vacuum energy are up to 120 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of dark energy seen today.

(Again scientific observation does NOT MATCH the "dark energy" theory. Its just more science fiction. The "big bang" theory is like a comic book with different stories and about 'dark matter", "dark energy". It reads like a comic book and makes as much sense. Fiction is presented as fact. Don't put your trust in the comic book of evolution that is science fiction.)Story Reports


120 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of dark energy seen today? That implies that we have “seen” dark energy “today.” But we have not! Similar to dark matter, “dark energy” is another mysterious concept that has been fabricated because the “theory still isn’t jibing perfectly with observation”.

For one thing, when the math was done to find what the cosmological constant should be via theory, it was 10 to 120th power (that’s a 1 followed by 120 zeros) times bigger than what we actually witness. A cosmological constant that large would mean that everything in the universe should be expanding so quickly that you would not be able to see beyond the end of your nose.

“A good story” is exactly the foundation on which evolutionary cosmology has been constructed. It appears that Mark Twain was correct when he wrote in Life on the Mississippi: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact”.


Many evolutionists have been working so diligently to find some way to “tweak” the Big Bang model so as to possibly revive it because the Big Bang is “scientifically brain dead.”

Cosmologists write as if they are quite certain of the Big Bang, yet, within the last decade, they have found it necessary to augment the standard view by means of various new theories. These schemes are meant to solve problems that cosmologists were never at pains to acknowledge, so that today they are somewhat in the position of a physician reporting both that his patient has not been ill and that he has been successfully revived.

Having constructed an elaborate scientific orthodoxy, cosmologists have acquired a vested interest in its defense.... Like Darwin’s theory of evolution, Big Bang cosmology has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory has been promoted to a secular myth.

(The "big bang" has itself evolved as a "scientific" theory. But it is a secular myth.)Story Reports

Enter inflationary theory—and the idea of (gulp!) a self-created Universe. In the past, it would have been practically impossible to find any reputable scientist who would have been willing to advocate a self-created Universe. To hold such a view would have been professional suicide.

“No material thing can create itself.”

Because the standard Big Bang model is in such dire straits, and because the evidence is so conclusive that the Universe had some kind of beginning, evolutionists now are actually suggesting that something came from nothing—that is, the Universe literally created itself from nothing!

(The evidence is conclusive that the universe had a beginning. This can be denied but is not logical. To say something came from nothing is not logical. To say the universe created itself is not logical.

Evolution "scientists" keep inventing theories and SOMETHING FROM NOTHING to deny a creator who created the universe that is fine tuned.) Story Reports

Romans 1:18-24

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Edward P. Tryon, professor of physics at the City University of New York, was one of the first to suggest such an outlandish hypothesis: “In 1973,” he said, “I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing, as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both” (1984, 101:14-16, emp. added).

This is the same Edward P. Tryon who went on record as stating: “Our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time”.

(Ask yourself how could there be established principles of physics before anything was created. The established principles of physics are scientific observations or rules on paper. Edward P. tryon professed himself to be wise but became a fool just as GOD says.) Story Reports


Three years earlier, as it turned out, physicist Alan Guth of MIT had published a paper titled “Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,” in which he outlined the specifics of inflationary theory (see Guth, 1981). Three years later, the idea that the Universe had simply “popped into existence from nothing,” took flight when, in the May 1984 issue of Scientific American, Guth teamed up with physicist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton to co-author an article titled “The Inflationary Universe,” in which they suggested:

From a historical point of view probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing.... The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

(Again "Inflationary Universe" popped into existance to claim the universe popped into existance. The theory is science fiction. It is a computer model that had equations (data) minipulated to result in a model that explains creation.

Evolutionists keep making models to explain creation because there former models are found to not be scientifically valid after a period of time. This is because they must deny a Creator at all costs.
) Story Reports


Therefore, even though principles of physics that “cannot be logically attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us” precluded the creation of something out of nothing, suddenly, in an eleventh-hour effort to resurrect the comatose Big Bang Theory, it was suggested that indeed, the Universe simply had “created itself out of nothing.”

“ models are based on the concept that particles [of matter—BT/BH/BM] can be created out of nothing at all...under certain conditions” and that “...matter might suddenly appear in large quantities”

(Keep in mind E=mc squared

Energy can be converted to matter and matter converted to energy but it can neither be created nor distroyed.

In the real world not the world of science fiction matter and energy can't be created from NOTHING!) Story Reports

Einstein's equation states that the amount of energy you have is equal to the mass involved times the square of the speed of light. If 1 gram of mass is converted into energy, then to determine how much energy is involved in ergs, you just multiply 1 gram by the speed of light squared, in units of centimeters per second.

Energy in ergs = 1 gram x ( 30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec) x (30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec).

This equals 900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0 ergs of energy.

Now, to convert this into other physical units is a bit awkward but doable. For instance, this is equal to the energy emitted by a 100 watt bulb (producing 100 x 10 million ergs/sec) for:

900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0/(100 x 10,000,000) = 900,000,000,000.0 seconds. Since there are about 30,000,000.0 seconds in a year, this means that a 100 watt bulb running for 30,000 years produces as much energy as 1 gram of matter converted into energy. Or you can think of it as 30,000 hundred-watt bulbs burning for one year - the output from a small town lighting system.

There are other physical units you could use as well. If you don't like watts, you could use horse power. 1 HP = 745 watts, so 1 gram of matter converted into energy equals 1 HP expended for about 30,000/7.45 = 3500 years. If you don't like grams, you could use pounds. 1 pound = 453 grams so 1 pound converted to energy gives you 453 x ( 900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0 ) ergs. If you like BTUs, however, 1 BTU = 1055 Joules or 10.55 billion ergs per second over one second of time. 1 BTU = 100 watts ( 100 joules/sec) x 10.55 seconds. 1 gram converted to energy would then equal an expenditure of 1 BTU for:

900,000,000,000.0 / 10.55 = 9,000,000,000.0 seconds or about 300 years.


Evolution "scientists" says the universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.... So what had to happen to start the universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum numbers of the void.... Much is still in the speculative stage, and there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin.

(Do you believe an "empty bubble" created the universe from nothing? They say there didn't have to be a cause it just happened. So evolution "scientists" say an empty bubble created the universe from nothing without a cause or an accidental origin. If you are not brain dead you won't believe this! This is where the alice in wonderland rabbit hole makes more sense than the "empty bubble" theory. Of course numbers can be crunched in a computer to "validate" anything. But the numbers crunched in a computer that is garbage to start with will of course result in garbage being created from nothing.) Story Reports


The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom.

And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of—out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and there-after expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever. And so cosmologists have given us Creation ex nihilo.... And at the instant of this Creation, they inform us, almost parenthetically, the universe possessed the interesting attributes of Infinite Temperature, Infinite Density, and Infinitesimal Volume, a rather gripping state of affairs, as well as something of a sudden and dramatic change from Nothing Whatsoever. They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good.

Ralph Estling wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing.

I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can’t help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing, even if Edward Tryon (ah, a name at last!) has written that “our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time....” Perhaps, although we have the word of many famous scientists for it, our universe is not simply one of those things that happen from time to time.

If no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness.

Evolutionists like Tryon, Stenger, Guth, and Steinhardt insist that this marvelously intricate Universe is “simply one of those things which happen from time to time” as the result of a “random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void” that caused matter to evolve from “literally nothing.” Such a suggestion, of course, would seem to be a clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics, which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature.

Hot Big Bang cosmology appears to be in violation of the first law of thermodynamics. The global energy needed to run the universe has come from nowhere, and to nowhere it apparently goes as the universe loses energy by cooling itself.

This contravention of thermodynamics expresses, in physical form, a general philosophical anxiety. Having brought space and time into existence, along with everything else, the Big Bang itself remains outside any causal scheme.

(You see the "big bang" itself is the evolutionists's creator also. It remains outside of their scheme. Their "GOD" is the "big bang" their creator and sustainer. Their alpha and omega, their beginning and end.

Don't be fooled into believing in a "big bang" creator who was created by man to deceive you into thinking there is no GOD who created everything in 6 days.

Read the KJV bible and find the real answers to creation. The bible is not a theory. real science validates what GOD says about creation. Real science invalidates the theories that are created by evolution "scientists".) Story Reports

Good News Post (KJV Bible)


“The current state of knowledge can be summarized thus: In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded”

The creation of the universe remains unexplained by any force, field, power, potency, influence, or instrumentality known to physics—or to man. The whole vast imposing structure organizes itself from absolutely nothing. This is not simply difficult to grasp. It is incomprehensible.

(Incomprehensible is a good term for the creation of the universe from nothing if you believe in evolution. But if you believe GOD the creator of the universe created everything, it is not. God is supernatural. "A manifestation or event beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." The bible never changes. Evolutionary theories change over time to explain scientific descoveries that despute evolution theories.

What are you going to put your faith and trust in? Evolutionary theories that change over time or GOD'S WORD that never changes.)
Story Reports

Mal.3:6 I the Lord do not change.

Duet. 33:27 Ps.90:2 From everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


A universe that has suddenly switched itself on has accomplished something within time; and yet the Big Bang is supposed to have brought space and time into existence.

First of all, at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing.... Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from.


(Do you see the more evolutionists try to explain the origin of the universe the more evident it is their creation models are science fiction only?) Story Reports


The Inflationary Universe, “Before the Big Bang”.

The problem with all of this is that the inflation scenario seems rather contrived and raises many unresolved questions. Why is the universe created with the inflaton field displaced from equilibrium? Why is the displacement the same everywhere? What are the initial conditions that produce inflation? How can the inflationary phase be made to last long enough to produce our universe?

Thus, the inflation scenario which was invented to eliminate the contrived initial conditions of the Big Bang model apparently needs contrived initial conditions of its own.

If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.

The only thing that all the experts agree on is that no idea works—yet.

The entire grand scheme of eternal inflation does not appear to be open to observational tests.

If eternal inflation really describes the evolution of the universe, then the beginning may be entirely inaccessible to observational tests. The point is that even the original inflationary model, with a single inflation event, already had the property of erasing evidence from the preinflation epoch. Eternal inflation appears to make any efforts to obtain information about the beginning, via observations in our own universe, absolutely hopeless.

(Eternal inflation, what a strange term. Just foolishness contrived by people who deny GOD the creator.) Story Reports

Evolutions admit:

We simply do not know our cosmic origins; intriguing alternatives abound, but none yet compels. We do not know the details of inflation, nor what came before, nor the nature of the dark, unseen material, nor the nature of the repulsive forces that dilute gravity. The book of the cosmos is still open. Note carefully: we no longer see a big bang as a direct solution. Inflation erases evidence of past space, time and matter.


(The book of the cosmos is still open and it is the HOLY BIBLE. It is open to anyone who will believe in GOD the Creator of the universe. If you are an atheist the book of the cosmos is open to you. It takes "faith" to be an atheist and say: "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

It takes faith to believe there is no GOD. It is a decision to deny GOD the Creator of the universe. Athiests proclaim their lack of belief but this in itself is a belief or faith.) Story Reports

Good News Post (KJV) Bible


Furthermore, science is based on observation, reproducibility, and empirical data. But when pressed for the empirical data that document the claim that the Universe created itself from nothing, evolutionists are forced to admit, as Dr. Stenger did, that “...there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea....” Estling summarized the problem quite well when he stated: “There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness.”


The Big Bang Theory--A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole]

The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part II] [Whole]

CreationSermons.comAudio and Video evidence that GOD the Creator created the universe in 6 days.

(My prayer is all who take time to read this article will have the light of creation shine in their hearts and know that GOD Created the universe in 6 days and has made provision for their eternal salvation through Jesus Christ The Lord.) Story Reports
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -1st Corinthians 2:14

Psalms 10:4
4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Acts 4:12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

1 Timothy 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

(Repentance involves the very process of conversion whereby men are born again)

Repent- means achange of mind that results in a change of conduct.
Repentance is not merely sorrow. It involves a complete change of attitude regarding GOD and sin and is accompained by a sense of sorrow and a change in conduct.

Such repentance does not arise within man himself, but is the result of GOD's mercy in leading man to it , Acts 5:31; Rom 2:4 2 Tim 2:25. Thus repentance involves the very process of conversion whereby men are born again.

Romans 10:9,10

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Isa 55: 6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Galatians 6:7 "Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.".

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:" -Ephesians 2:1,2

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

58 year old truck takes a licking but keeps on ticking

PRINSBURG, Minn. – It's the best $75 Bob Sportel ever spent.

Sportel was in his early 20s and needing a cheap ride to work, when he paid $75 for a rusty Chevrolet pickup.

This week Sportel retired from his job at the Prinsburg Farmers Co-op, still driving to work in the same 58-year-old truck.

"It kept going so I just kept driving it," says Sportel, who had tried to negotiate the price down to $50 before paying the local farmer who owned the truck his asking price.

"If I could get four years out of it, I thought I'd be really happy," says Sportel, who ended up driving the pickup to work for 38 years before his retirement this week.

The odometer in the 1957 Chevy pickup was broken when Sportel bought it, but he estimates the truck has racked up 300,000 miles between its former farm life and the daily drive the past 38 years between Sportel's home in Prinsburg and his work across town.

Sportel has applied several layers of duct tape to the truck's upholstery. Bondo holds the front lights in place and rust holes provide portholes to the truck's underside.

Sportel has never garaged the truck and has never had it repainted.

"It's pretty basic," he says. The old Chevy doesn't even have a radio.

Sportel's one extravagance: four oil changes a year. He figures he's spent fewer than $1000 on repairs during nearly four decades of use.

Sportel even passed on a new muffler when the old one rusted out.

"Everybody knows Bob's around," says Phil Breems, a co-worker at the Farmer's Co-op. "We all get out of the way," he laughs.

Though Sportel has retired, his truck will soldier on.

"It just becomes a part of you," the proud owner says. "I don't know how to explain it."
I would like to have a good pickup like this one. They don't make them like this anymore nor would most people be satisfied with driving the same vechicle for so long. Most wear out. Duck tape keeps it going. After obama destroys America we will keep it "running" via duck tape.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Boehner is telling obama, "I'm your boy". I am a traitor, liar and will do anything for money.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Psalms 19:1

Our Solar System: Evidence of Creation 1hr 28 min
Our Solar System: Evidence of Creation (Former atheist engineer working on military space program explains why.) Seminar by Spike Psarris Seattle Creation Conference, July 2006.

This presentation goes through each planet in our Solar System (and a few of their moons), and shows how each one discredits evolutionary theories in a different way. Includes about 100 beautiful photos taken from various space probes and the Hubble Space Telescope.

Psalms 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.