Post-show update: Jerry Coyne, fruit-fly expert and evolution professor, has just blogged against Real Science Radio. Bob Enyart's comment in reply is "awaiting moderation" :) See all of this at our article at realscienceradio.com/Jerry-Coyne.

* Flying Like a Falcon: Bob and Fred talk about the terrific new issue of "Answers," the magazine by AnswersInGenesis.org. The fastest land animal on earth is the cheetah, but the fastest animal of all is the peregrine falcon. Dr. Don DeYoung, one of the foremost Creationist research scientists in the world and president of the Creationist Research Society, recently spoke at the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship. His article about peregrine falcons describe how they can fly at speeds of 200 mph thanks to highly specialized "equipment" in their physiology.

For the falcon to breathe at such high speeds, their nostrils have a conical structure in the center of their nostrils, functioning as a “baffle” which is copied in the designs of jet engines to this day. Did this “evolve” independent of the bird’s body shape, feather design, wing angle and optical system?

A falcon's eyes must be exceptional, with four times as many photo-receptor cells as a human eye, helping give it amazingly clear long-distance vision. Their eyes are also capable of functioning while speeding through the air at such high speeds, unlike the human eye, in part thanks to nictitating membranes, which are transparent eyelids, so that they can "close" their eyes and yet still see clearly.

This brings to mind Bob's debate with a University of California professor of Ophthalmology on the evolution of the eye, in which the evolutionist made the following erroneous claims about the human eye:

* Evolution Makes Eye Expert Ignorant on the Eye: Gary Aguilar repeatedly claims that the plica semilunaris (in the corner of your eye), is a functionless leftover of evolution. However, according to the authoritative Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology (Vol. 2, Ch. 2: Plica Semilunaris), the plica functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage, and to permit greater rotation of the eyeball, for without the plica, the membrane called the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement. Rather than being informed with the latest knowledge from his own field, Aguilar is decades out of date on the anatomy of both the wiring of the retina and on the plica, claiming it is a functionless leftover of the nictitating membrane (an additional, transparent eyelid in some creatures). Rather than researching his Darwinian claims in the most relevant scientific literature, Aguilar, following Dawkins, gets his outdated claims from a 150-year old book by Charles Darwin. Aguilar also repeats Dawkins' long-refuted claim, based on scientific ignorance and evolutionary bias, that the human eye is wired backward. For an explanation of why our eye is wired the reverse of an octopus, and optimally for human vision, listen to the Enyart-Aguilar-Eye-Excerpts, see Dr. Carl Wieland's article, and the peer-reviewed paper by Peter Gurney, a fellow of the Royal Colleges of Ophthalmologists, as well as his popular article that deals with both the plica and the wiring. (See more at realscienceradio.com/eye.)

* The Planet Mercury Leaves NASA Jaw-Dropping Shocked: RSR co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have a ball talking about the amazing planet of Mercury and how, for such a small planet, it's causing such a load of trouble for the evolutionists.

- Details: Big Bang proponents can look on the bright side, where Mercury is 800 degrees Fahrenheit and 200 below zero at night. But after that, the Mercury messenger is a harbinger of bad news for evolutionary astronomers.
- Density: From its pull on NASA's 1974 Mariner space probe, we learned that Mercury's density is far beyond what evolutionary accretion could produce. So as they do with most of the planets, Big Bang proponents including theoretical physicists (with the emphasis on the theoretical, as in the RSR interview with Lawrence Krauss), appeal to catastrophism, whereby first Mercury formed in the traditional way claimed through the condensing swirling nebula (which Isaac Newton evaluated as impossible via gravity), but then a planet-level collision ejected all the light matter off of Mercury and left just the heavy stuff. Really.
- Magnetism: The claim that Mercury is four billion years old led BB proponents to predict that it would be a dead (so to speak), inert rock having no magnetic field. But in 1974, NASA's Mariner 10 spacecraft readings contradicted that fundamental evolutionary assumption, detecting a significant magnetic field. Then in 2008, NASA's Messenger craft measured the field's strength as significantly decreased, in only those few decades, which again contradicted their theory. Then in 2011, Messenger orbited the planet, and confirmed a startling (to old-earthers) 8% decrease since 1974. So, as with the Earth's rapidly decaying magnetic field, if Mercury were billions of years old, planet-wide features like it's magnetism would have reached stasis and not demonstrate such rapid change.
- Angular momentum: Mercury's rotation and orbit around the sun, as representative of the other planets, points out a huge contradiction to the most fundamental assumptions of evolutionary solar system formation. For its Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic! That alone validates Isaac Newton's scientific insight against the nebula hypothesis because if it were true, then something would have to either tilt the massive sun (something rather difficult, to put it mildly, to get a handle on), or shift, as a group, the orbits of the planets. Then to pile on, when adding up the mass of Mercury and all its fellow planets, you get only about one percent of the mass of the Sun, whereas 99% of the energy of the spin of the solar system (its angular momentum) resides in the planets, with the Sun, contrary to all evolutionary expectations, has only one percent of the spin, which at least on the surface, directly contradicts the conservation of angular momentum. (And to make matters worse yet again, exoplanets and their stars appear to contradict the secondary assumptions appealed to for explaining away this one particular problem, just as exoplanets are contradicting the solar system formation theory in many ways, a theory created to explain our own system, which it fails to do at almost every point, and fails again with exoplanets.)

For today's show RSR recommends
What You Aren't Being Told [by NPR's Science Shows for example] About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!

* The World's Best-selling Creation Author on RSR: Creation Ministries International's Dr. Jonathan Sarfati talks to Bob Enyart about the most recent scientific discoveries which have been disturbing the evolutionists. Real Science Radio is happy to get input from a Ph.D. chemist who's done post-graduate work in nuclear physics, on the science themes that we've covered so far this year. UPDATE: See also our 2014 interview, rsr.org/jonathan-sarfati. 

* Jonathan Sarfati Coming To Denver: You are invited to join Bob in attending the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship meeting to hear Dr. Sarfati, the world's most-popular creation scientist! Click for more info. Opportunities to see Dr. Sarfati:
- Fri, Nov. 9, 7 pm, Lakewood, Rocky Mtn Creation Fellowship, 2100 N. Wadsworth
- Sat. Nov. 10, 7 pm, Longmont, Faith Baptist Church, 833 15th Ave
- Sun Nov. 11, 9am & 10am, Longmont, Faith Baptist
- Sun. Nov. 11, 6pm, Littleton, 6100 S. Divinney Way

* FLASHBACK: Dr. Sarfati Rebuts Richard Dawkins:  The world's #1 creation author takes on the world's #1 evolution author Richard Dawkins. The pro-evolution book, The Greatest Show on Earth, is refuted by Dr. Sarfati's The Greatest Hoax on Earth! In this chat with Jonathan Sarfati, BEL's producer re-airs a caller from 1997 who asked about Dawkins and Bob pointed out then that in all Dawkins' books, this famous atheist doesn't give evidence for evolution: he only assumes it is true. Dr. Sarfati agrees and quotes from Dawkins own book in which he admits that he had never given the evidence for evolution. Huh! [Update: BEL has now spliced audio of Dawkins admitting exactly what Bob had accused him of back in that 1997 call. See it below or on YouTube: Dawkins Proves Creationist Right.)

* BEL Telethon: We're at $20,150 of our $30,000 goal to help keep Bob Enyart Live and Real Science Radio on the radio for another year! Please click to help!

Today’s Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You’ll love our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine that features the writings of Dr. Sarfati!

* Enyart's Creationist Claim from 1997 Eventually Confirmed By Richard Dawkins: On national TV, Bob Enyart claimed that Richard Dawkins' books never presented any evidence for evolution but only the assumption that evolution were true. A dozen years later, Dawkins admits that in all of his previous books, he only assumed, but did not provide evidence for evolution. That vindicates Bob Enyart's direct statement to a caller who recommended that Bob read Dawkins (which Bob had done, but which the caller had not). See it unfold:

* Real Science Radio Talks to the CSHF Chairman: RSR co-host Bob Enyart introduces Nick Lally, chairman of the board of the Creation Science Hall of Fame, to our creationist friends in the audience.

 
* Lally and Enyart also Discuss:
- creation scientists who should be honored, even though they don't move within the circles of the mega-ministries
- the human and dinosaur footprint argument that creation ministries should begin using
- the dust on the moon argument that creation ministries should begin using, and
- the career-killing persecution of scientists who merely question Darwinism.

* RSR Interviews a UC San Francisco Professor of Ophthalmology: [Update: To hear RSR's 2014 analysis of this debate, go to rsr.org/eye-evolution.] Real Science Radio co-host Bob Enyart debates clinical professor of ophthalmology Dr. Gary Aguilar on the evolution of the eye. Six months ago Gary recommended that Bob read a 2012 book by Dr. Schwab, a  colleague of Aguilar's at UC Irvine, about which Russell Fernald says that Evolution's Witness is "likely to be consulted by everyone interested in evolution and eyes." Hear that 40-minute debate about the eye by clicking any of our standard audio links above, or click here for an 83-minute wide-ranging discussion that also addresses many non-science issues.

* Ivan Schwab's Evolution's Witness -- How Eyes Evolved: Within minutes of the mailman delivering this book, on March 31, 2012, Bob wrote on the title page, with a number of folks around him signing as witnesses: "Prediction: Very little of this book will be about how eyes evolve." Dr. Aguilar described this textbook as a "tour de force" showing clearly how eyes evolved. During today's interview, Bob asserts that his prediction was valid, and that 99% of this book has nothing to do with how eyes evolve. It's a great anatomy book though!

* The Opsin Missing Chapter: Opsin is the protein in photoreceptor cells that can detect a single photon and then signal that a photon has struck it. One might expect from a book on the eye's evolution, that after a book's introduction, the author might include a chapter on an explanation, conceptually, of how opsin might evolve. In vertebrates and invertebrates, opsin requires a chain of 150 to 250 amino acids, which then must be folded correctly into a very specialized nano-machine which can pass along an output signal whenever the protein gets hit with a single photon. But, as creationists would expect, no such chapter exists in the book. And actually, all the difficult problems that one would have to address if he were actually writing a book on "How eyes evolved," do not appear in the book.

* The Vision Challenge Missing Chapter: Bob Enyart brought up this vision challenge to Gary Aguilar, but, like most atheists and evolutionists we've discussed this with, Gary was unresponsive. It appears that atheists and evolutionists do not even know how to think about this problem, let alone can they offer any conceivable notion about how it could even theoretically be solved. See this vision challenge presented in full from our debate with TheologyOnline.com's resident atheist Zakath. Bob had predicted that even a state-of-the-art "tour de force" textbook by an ophthalmology professor would not even begin to describe how vision might evolve, and also, that this interview with an ophthalmologist professor would demonstrate their basic inability to substantively think through something that they routinely oversell to the public as a done deal. "We know 'how eyes evolved,' only an ignorant person would doubt our claims." At 2:33 into an interview on The Evolution of the Eye, Richard Dawkins illustrates the RSR "APPtitude test," aka, the Atheist Popularity Postulate, that the evolutionists who become the most popular are the ones who say the most absurd things with the straightest face. Imagine his evolving, curling, sheet of light-sensitive paper sending a static-like data stream to an unwitting brain that must then interpret the predator's shadow or direction of light (from the data represented by the screen above, on the left).

* Evolution Misled Eye Expert About the Eye: Gary Aguilar repeatedly claimed that the plica semilunaris (in the corner of your eye) is a functionless leftover of evolution. For example, at 3:15 into our interview, he said, "There are aspects of the human eye, for example, the nictitating membrane [which in some creatures is an additional, transparent eyelid] in lower animals is present in the plica semilunaris which has no function in humans; none whatsoever." Then to Bob's question, "Dr. Aguilar, can you repeat that, what is it that has no function whatsoever?" Gary answered, "The plica p-l-i-c-a semilunaris." However, according to the authoritative Duane's Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology (Vol. 2, Ch. 2: Plica Semilunaris), the plica functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage, and to permit greater rotation of the eyeball, for without the plica, the membrane called the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement. Gary here illustrated something we describe about evolutionists, that rather than being informed with the latest knowledge from his own area of expertise, Aguilar claimed decades out of date "evidence", in his case, on the anatomy of both the wiring of the retina, and on the plica, claiming it is a functionless leftover. Rather than researching his Darwinian claims in the most relevant scientific literature, Aguilar, following Dawkins, ultimately got his outdated claims from a 150-year old book by Charles Darwin. Aguilar also repeats Dawkins' long-refuted claim, based on scientific ignorance and evolutionary bias, that the human eye is wired backward. For an explanation of why our eye is wired the reverse of an octopus, and optimally for human vision, listen to the Enyart-Aguilar-Eye-Excerpts, and see Dr. Carl Wieland's article, and a paper by Peter Gurney, a fellow of the Royal Colleges of Ophthalmologists in a peer-reviewed creation journal, as well as Gurney's popular article that deals with both the plica and the wiring. And read and hear Dr. Jerry Bergman explain that the function of the plica semilunaris has been documented since the 1930s. 2013 UPDATE: Dr. Aguilar wrote to Bob Enyart, "...let me acknowledge that the plica semilunaris is considered to have some function..." though he denied the plica aids in globe movement, thereby apparently disagreeing with the statement in Duane's Ophthalmology that, "if the conjunctiva were to directly join the eyelids to the globe, the globe and eyelids would both be restricted in movement." Perhaps Gary could share his disagreement with DO's Darlene Dartt and help everyone get to the bottom of that one particular detail.

* The Missing Trochlea Challenge Chapter: Ivan Schwab doesn't include a chapter on how simple mechanics of the eye would have evolved, as illustrated in this trochlea challenge which has been circulating on the web in evolution circles from well before Schwab's book was published. Back on April 18th, we sent to Gary our PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge. It's this simple sketch of the human eye, with a single question in its caption. PZ has responded to us, admitting that he cannot answer this challenge, and we appreciate that truthfulness.

Special Silly Episode

* Star Trek Borrows Technology from Lost in Space: Trekkie fanatics think that Gene Roddenberry introduced the world to many of our new technological concepts. Even the book, The Physics of Star Trek, written by our debate opponent physicist Lawrence Krauss, should have been titled The Physics of Lost in Space. (Krauss is known for mistitling his books, including for example, A Universe from Nothing). In reality, all those fun technological concepts came not from Star Trek, but from Lost in Space!

* Warning, warning Will Robinson: There are Bible verses up ahead. As Solomon wrote: "There is no new thing under the sun…" or, beyond it for that matter. Lost in Space first aired on TV in 1965, a year before Star Trek, and prefigured much of the technology and culture of its step-child spin off. Like these…

"Resistance is futile!" says an alien to the robot! (Wreck Of the Robot)

Transporter beam: (Prisoners of Space)

Ship's velocity: Can travel at near light speed

Weapons: Laser guns, i.e., “phasers”

Mechanical personality: Like androids on the ship, the robot is sentient, develops human emotions; experiments with humor, and like Data from The Next Generation, grows beyond his programming

Speech: Aliens always speak English except when episodic communication difficulties aid the plot

Replicator: An alien device, a "molecular replicator," can make whatever Dr. Smith wants (The Dream Monster)

Alien forms: Most aliens look humanoid while some look like reptiles

Force field: An invisible shield can protect the ship

War: Some alien civilizations have evolved beyond the use of war

Tractor beam: Invisible force that can tow an entire space ship or pull a ship even against its own propulsion into a space dock

Ethics: This is the only general category where Star Trek truly broke new ground. On Lost in Space, Captain John Robinson and his family are relatively consistent with the application of justice (except for their irritating, relentless, and unbiblical forgiving of Dr. Smith). On the other hand, Star Trek captains seem to violate their federation's Prime Directive on every other episode. :) Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, and Janeway, the first-ever female star ship captain (who got lost on her very first episode, didn't like asking for directions, took seven full seasons to find her way back, and who in the real world, as played by Kate Mulgrew, narrated an unfortunate documentary on geocentrism that claims that the sun and the universe orbit the Earth every 24 hours), not only violate the Prime Directive repeatedly by interfering with underdeveloped alien civilizations, but always with positive results. The Federation has itself evolved beyond warfare and the use of force yet every ship is equipped with weapons of mass destruction, the inventory of which is frequently restocked. (Picard himself personally killed more than three-dozen "people", i.e., sentient beings, not counting the annihilation of entire crews on ships blown to bits by the Enterprise.)

* We're Not Saying that Gene Rodenberry Wasn't a Visionary: If imitation is the sincerest form of flatterys, Rodenberry was exceedingly magnamous. It's not that he wasn't a visionary; we're just saying that he was even better at ripping off other people! Like the episode of The Outer Limits which featured William Shatner in the lead role as a space explorer involved in a mission called "Project Vulcan". 

* RSR Celebrates AiG's Evidence for a Young Earth: Real Science Radio co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams celebrate the scientific evidence presented in the current issue of Answers Magazine, a high-quality quarterly publication from Answers in Genesis. Many of the most universal scientific observations, both on Earth and in space, refute old earth claims whereas the Bible declares God's creation of the Earth and the universe only thousands of years ago. AiG, founded by Ken Ham, one of the world's leading creationists, describes the billions of years of missing seafloor sediment and saltiness in the oceans, the bent rock layers, soft tissue in fossils, the faint sun paradox, the rapidly weakening magnetic field, helium in zircons, carbon-14 in diamonds and fossils, short-lived comets, and DNA in ancient bacteria.

* YoungEarth.com Climbing the Charts: Casey Kasem would be proud! Two months ago the RSR guys launched YoungEarth.com, and for weeks a Google search for: young earth, did not list our site even within its first 100 results. Then the site started climbing the page rankings, appearing on page three, then two! Now, as of today's program, for a search of: young earth, Google ranks our site on page one. And we hope to continue our climb, gradually moving up toward the #1 highest-ranked young earth page on the entire Internet! Please link to us.

* Nature Paper Confirms RSR Rejection of 'Junk' DNA: A landmark study by 440 researchers working in 32 laboratories around the world has so far been able to identify function for 80 percent of the human genome! Real Science Radio co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams also present six minutes of audio from 1998 when leading evolutionist Eugenie Scott tells Bob that genetic scientists were "over the hump" and affirmatively knew that the pseudogenes had no function and that such junk DNA was therefore evidence against the existence of a Designer. Hear the fundamentalist Bible teacher disagree with the degreed scientist, and guess who science has vindicated?

* Notice the Nucleotides in the Trash Bags: :) -->

* Hear Eugenie Scott & Bob Spar on Junk DNA: At the beginning of this radio program, hear audio from 1998 from Bob and leading anti-creationist Eugenie Scott debating the merits of the Junk DNA argument! (And see more below). Hear also physicist Lawrence Krauss acknowledge to Bob Enyart that his friend Eugenie was wrong.

* ENCODE Project Takes Out the Trash: The project leader for ENCODE (the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) is predicting that eventually, we will learn that "100%" of the genome is functional. (ENCODE Consortium, Dunham, et al., Nature, 2012, pp. 57-74). When the scientist finally reaches the summit, he finds the theologian already there.

* Famed Molecular Evolutionist in a Tough Spot: Please pray for Dan Graur. To a young-earth creationist who has been vindicated by ENCODE (and now through 2019 with mountains of consistent data continuously rising up), Dan Graur's angst is our celebration. In 2017 he published, desperately, that based on evolutionary assumptions the human genome cannot be more than at the very most 25% functional. Oh boy. Then in 2019 he acknowledged even more bluntly:

If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong. 

* 2019 Worm Update: Worm "junk DNA" turns out to control their ability to regenerate, says Harvard's Evolutionary Biology department. So, even with the worms Dr. Graur, it wasn't junk after all.

For this show, RSR recommends
Dr. Don Johnson's Programming of Life DVD!

* Junky Real Science Radio Shows
- "Nature" Confirms Creationist Rejection of Junk DNA (this webpage)
- Bob Debates an Evolutionist 1998 DVD (from our archives)
- RSR: Enyart Exhumes Eugenie Scott (2005 radio program: show summary copied here...)

* RSR: Bob Debates Ph.D. Evolutionist Eugenie Scott: One of the world's leading anti-creationists vs. Bob Enyart. The debate is decided in the first round, by TKO. That’s after Bob asked the well-known scientist for any evidence that any high-level function had ever evolved, like eyesight, or hearing, or flight, or mobility in general? Through the hour-long debate, this evolutionist refused to offer any such evidence but finally settled on a claim of evidence against design, which was: junk DNA!

* JUNK DNA: Eugenie Flubs Genetics Prediction, Creationist Hits the Bull's-eye. The negative evidence that Eugenie did offer was Junk DNA. This scientist, from her Darwinist worldview, therefore didn't offer scientific evidence but made this philosophical argument about what a Creator would or would not do; namely, that He wouldn't fill our genome with so much non-protein-coding DNA. While some simple worms have 20,000 genes, it is typically a small portion of DNA that actually codes for proteins. A human has only 20,500 genes, which fills only 2% of our genome. Yet the widespread evolutionary claim for decades (including through the last two decades, and for many, still held today) was that the rest of the genome was left-over evolutionary garbage.

* PART II -- Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear also Krauss part I but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss.

* Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6 in his book, and 3:45 into today's program, beginning with Krauss' question, "You're not a young earther, are you?"). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months):

RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For the latest version of this list which includes links to dozens of peer-reviewed journal papers where even proponents themselves admit their major discoveries go against the predictions of their own big bang theory, see rsr.org/evidence-against-the-big-bang. Here's a summary:

* Mature galaxies exist far, far away where the big bang predicts that only infant galaxies should exist.
* Hundreds of galaxies are clustered out at tremendous distances where the big bang predicts that such clusters should not exist.
* Spiral galaxies look “too perfect” because they are missing millions of years of their predicted collisions.
* The surface brightness of the furthest galaxies is identical to that of the nearest galaxies, contradicting a central prediction of the big bang.
* Nine billion years of synthesized heavy elements are missing from a trillion stars. That’s a lot. This study failed to confirm the fundamental expectation of the big bang’s theory of nuclear synthesis.
* Not even one of the millions of stars ever analyzed is a supposed “first generation” star (aka Population III), contrary to big bang expectations.
* The discovery of exoplanets, including hot Jupiters and one with a retrograde orbit, has completely falsified the big bang’s nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, as openly admitted by Mike Brown, the exoplanet database manager for NASA.
* It is not a scientific statement but merely a philosophical one to claim that the universe has no center, and thus, the big bang’s central Copernican principle is not based on science but on philosophical bias, as widely acknowledged including by Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.
* The most advanced three-dimensional map of more than a million galaxies seems to imply that the universe has a center.
* Our sun is missing nearly 100% of the angular momentum (i.e., spin) that the big bang theories of stellar evolution and solar system formation predict that it should have.
* There is an entire universe worth of missing antimatter if the big bang theory were true.
* The big bang’s theory of chemical evolution is in crisis as inherently admitted with the National Academy of Sciences report titled, 11 Science Questions for the New Century which asks “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” with the journal Nature recently publishing a paper also admitting that even supernovae cannot produce our earth’s heavy elements.

* Real Science Radio has a Far Ranging Conversation with Krauss: [Page updated April 19, 2021] Co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's interview of theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), atheist Lawrence Krauss. Fred says, "It's David vs. Goliath, but without the slingshot." As the discussion ranges from astronomy and anatomy to cosmology and physics, most folks would presume that Dr. Krauss would take apart Enyart's arguments, especially when the Bible believer got the wrong value for the electron-to-proton mass ratio. But the conversation reveals fascinating dynamics from the creation/evolution debate. (The planned 25-minute interview ran 40 minutes, so there's also a Krauss Part II and once in each half we say, "Stop the tape, stop the tape," to comment.)

* "All Evidence Overwhelmingly Supports the Big Bang": Contradicting Dr. Krauss' over-the-top sales pitch, see RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang, cataloging major observations made by NASA and leading institutions which, as the discoverers typically admit, contradict what was predicted based on the most fundamental expectations of the Big Bang.

* Atheists Admit Fully Half of the Argument: When admitting that biological life appears designed, and that the universe appears finely tuned, the atheist admits fully half of the intelligent design argument. Krauss friend Richard Dawkins often says and has written that, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed..." (Dawkins, Watchmaker, p. 1). And the leading cosmologists acknowledge the appearance of the fine tuning of many of the parameters of the universe. Stephen Hawking titled his 2010 book, The Grand Design, and since the 1980s has been admitting, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 129). The first half of the argument for the existence of a Designer is the identification of that which appears to be designed. Bob tried to get Krauss to acknowledge this much.

-Richard Dawkins describes as "the kind of question only a creationist would ask", this one, which he still can't answer, “Give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.”
- Larry Krauss however set a record for not recognizing the most common terms in the least amount of time. RSR will keep Webster's Desktop Reference handy for any future interviews with Lawrence or other atheists. Krauss asked, often incredulously, as though he had never heard of such things:
- "What's a person?"
- "What's an atheist?"
- "What's an evolutionist?"
- "What's Darwinism?"
- He never heard of the "multiverse" proposed as an answer for the fine-tuning problem. Like his friend Eugenie being unfamiliar with the concept of a "problem", Larry had never heard of the multiverse as an answer to a problem, until moments later when he remembered it. 2014 Update: Regarding cosmological awareness, Enyart trumps Krauss, as this quote demonstrates in the journal Nature in an article by Joe Silk and Hawking co-author George Ellis:

The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist.

Ellis and Silk also point out the obvious, that promotion of the multiverse by astrophysicists "undermines science". 
- Krauss acts as though he's never heard of the idea of directed panspermia, nor the idea of the complexity of life being explained in part by claiming that it originated in outer space. Moments later Krauss says panspermia is an "interesting" idea, and then later, a "fascinating" idea. Panspermia, though of the non-directed type, is an idea that he himself presented on CNN just weeks earlier. As physicist Rob Sheldon, at the Marshall Space Flight Center, writes, "a not-insignificant thread of scientists who have held this view, including Arrhenius, Crick, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe and now supported by the observations of Hoover", Richard Hoover being an astrobiologist also with NASA’s MSFC who imagines that life developed somewhere in outer space. Beyond well known scientists like Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, even Krauss' own friend Richard Dawkins suggested directed panspermia, that is, that aliens intentionally seeded life on earth. Atheists take note however: Aliens didn't create man, man created aliens. Note also, by the way, that this entire argument is one of punting. Sheldon wrote that, "if it occurred somewhere else in the galaxy, it would have had more time..." More time? The same evidence precluding life from forming here applies elsewhere, and while BB cosmology alleges that some other planet might have existed three or four times longer than Earth, the mere statistical hurdles presented by a "simple" biological organism assembling through chance chemical interactions is an orders-of-magnitude problem, with trillions and trillions of universes enduring trillions of times longer that ours still vastly insufficient for the task. Further, life is information based, and no merely material entity can create information. (Computers manipulate physical representations of information and are tools of sentient beings.) Thus in mere moments Krauss moves from ignorant to enthusiastic about an endeavor which is nothing more than the desperation of a failed worldview.
- Honorable mention: Desperate evolutionists find hope in disabled Turks. Really.
The Conclusion of the Matter: "A quirky debate tactic of the weak side" says Dominic Enyart, "is that they ask for definitions of the most common terms even when everybody knows what's meant." (In another debate Krauss annoyed the audience by needlessly asking for definitions, of poselytize, new atheism, scientism, imponderable. Oh brother.) Evolutionists use this tactic (rsr.org/atheists-say-the-darndest-things), of pretending to be unfamiliar with common terms in order to obfuscate, to try to keep the debate away from substantive challenges, and as a delay tactic to minimize the number of challenges from creationists that they have to address.

* Krauss Says All Scientists are Darwinists: When you hear consensus, consensus, you may have reason to doubt the consensus. First, Krauss is ignoring the .6 million U.S. Ph.D.s, professors, etc., who doubt the fundamental claim of materialistic origins. Secondly, while there is nothing wrong with quoting an expert on a topic, Krauss uses the bait and switch tactic of identifying experts in one field and then without acknowledging the switch, proceeds as though they were experts in a different topic. By this Krauss commits the logical fallacy of an invalid argument from authority. Being a pilot doesn't mean that you could explain how to make an airplane, let alone the origin of gravity. The same is true, as explained below in the applied sciences item, regarding operational scientists vs. origins theorists. Yet even the Journal of Evolutionary Biology itself admits doubt over the primary evidence sold to the public, "A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution."

* Krauss Says All Scientists are Atheists: Another example of his constant unscientific hype was when Dr. Krauss said on today's program that, "All scientists are atheists." A moment later he admitted that many of them believe in God. (See also rsr.org/doubters#big-bang.)

For today's show RSR recommends
the best astronomy science DVD ever made!
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!