Let's go back to the tape for an instant replay. Everyone mind the bolded portions now. You wrote:
1. The primordial explosion should have propelled all the matter/energy of the cosmos out radially from its center, and by the principle of conservation of angular momentum, none of it could ever thereafter have acquired any kind of curvilinear motion. Yet there are all kinds of curving and orbiting motions of the stars and galaxies of the cosmos, a situation that seems quite impossible if the universe began with the Big Bang.
THEY wrote:
(a) The primordial explosion should have propelled all the matter and energy of the cosmos out radially from its center, and by the principle of conservation of angular momentum, none of it could ever thereafter have acquired any kind of curvilinear motion. Yet there all kinds of curving and orbiting motions of stars and galaxies of the cosmos, a situation that seems quite impossible if the universe began with the Big Bang
You wrote:
2. Sensitive measurements in recent years have increasingly been showing that the background radiation is not homogeneous and isotropic (that is, the same in all directions), as it should be if it had been produced by the Big Bang, but is anisotropic in all directions.
THEY wrote:
(b) Sensitive measurements in recent years have increasingly been showing that the background radiation is not homogeneous and isotropic (that is, the same in all directions), as it should be if it had been produced by the Big Bang, but is “anisotropic” in all directions.
You wrote:
3. The universe is anything but uniform in large-scale structure, as both the Big Bang and Steady State theories require, but instead is full of huge agglomerations of matter in some regions and vast empty spaces in others, scattered around the cosmos in far from any uniform manner. Some astronomers are now trying somehow to to imagine a primeval lumpy Big Bang.
They wrote:
(c) The universe is anything but uniform, as the big bang theories require, but instead is full of huge agglomerations of matter in some regions and vast empty spaces in others, scattered around the cosmos and far from any uniform manner.
You wrote:
4. In the context of the primeval fireball it is hard to justify the accumulation of any amount of matter in any one location such as a star. If the explosion is driving all galaxies apart in the resulting expansion, how could it fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?
THEY wrote:
(d) If the explosion is driving all galaxies apart in the resulting expansion, how could it fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together into galaxies?
You wrote:
5. And saving the best for last, the most serious objection comes back to the second law of thermodynamics. Explosions produce disorder, not order. The primordial superexplosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder. If the universe is indeed a closed system as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have?
They wrote:
(e) The most serious objection comes back again to the second law of thermodynamics. Explosions produce disorder, not order! The primordial super explosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder. If the universe is indeed a closed system, as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science, could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have?
Give it up, man - you're busted. F-minus.
"He's dead, Jim!"
I contend that I never read that document prior to it being posted here today. Actually I personally know the source of the information in question. The document referenced here is borrowed from that.
Nevertheless, I never called any of it my own which is a requirement for plagiarizing, and I believe that ThinkPlease was looking for any excuse to avoid having to debate the topic because ThinkPlease is intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument.
I am also not surprised to see that all the other evolutionists in this thread are totally incapable of dealing with issues and must resort to pointless side shows, lies, insults and other foolishness. You have learned well from your masters.
I bet it must really bother you that a Creationist has you folks reduced to scrambling for anything to silence the opposition. Typical.
I just feel the love from you God haters... :)
Yet another source for some of the text has been located! Behold:
http://www.thecolefamily.com/letters/ed042988.htm
At least two of the five arguments appear in this source, dated 1988, with minor changes in phrasing.
It is unclear who is copying from whom, but it sure looks like there's lots of unattributed ideas being cribbed in the anti-Evolutionary/anti-Big Bang landscape.