Krauss vs. Evidence from Astronomy and RSR Pt. 2


Staff member
Super Moderator
Krauss vs. Evidence from Astronomy and RSR Pt. 2

This is the show from Friday, April 23rd, 2021


* 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 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.

Today's Resource: For today's program we recommend

RSR's Evidence Against the Big Bang video.

* If our solar system’s heavy elements were produced in supernovae, then the sun and the earth are expected to have the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen. But the sun has “40 percent less nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)” than does the earth, and we have 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to other isotopes, than does the sun.

* The spiral galaxy’s beautiful arms are missing millions of years of expected deformation which lead proponents to assert the existence of the first of the hypothetical entities, dark matter, to prop up the big bang theory.

* Superclusters of millions of galaxies exist yet the big bang predicts that gravity could not form them even in the supposed great age of the cosmos.

* The astounding uniform temperature of the universe challenges the claim that the early universe would have been clumpy enough for galaxies to form.

* While materialists have spent a century objecting to “catastrophism” here on earth where continent-wide evidence for such catastrophe exists, out in space, there are so many planetary “anomalies”, like Venus rotating backwards, Uranus rolling, and the highly elongated and even retrograde orbits of exoplanets, that despite the enormous distances between astronomical bodies, cosmologists today have become catastrophists.

* The Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic, and is missing 99% of its expected spin, with both observations providing powerful evidence against the big bang’s nebular hypothesis sub-model.

* The infrared light that was supposed to be left over from star formation appears to not exist.

* Hundreds of advanced-degreed scientists have publicly rejected the big bang.

* The so-called “Axis of Evil”, confirmed most recently by the Planck satellite, appears to falsify the big bang’s Copernican principle of isotropy by displaying a preferred direction in the CMB.

* Quasars typically have high redshifts (implying great distance) but they statistically cluster with low redshift galaxies (implying near distance), undermining confidence in the big bang’s foundational claim that redshift reliably indicates distance.

* Contrary to any expectation of naturalism, the cosmos has astounding fine-tuning, which has led many big bang proponents to effectively admit the big bang’s inability to explain our existence. An increasing number of mainstream cosmologists therefore are resorting to a belief in the existence of countless trillions of universes, in hopes that, by mere chance, such a multiverse might explain the many wildly unlikely fortuitous circumstances that combine to enable our existence.

* All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang? The world’s most popular scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, at best stay silent and at worst abet their own side’s misrepresentation of the literature. The multinational multi-billion dollar science industry tolerates individual discoveries here and there which may require tweaking fundamental dogma. But what is not tolerated is the summarizing of widespread and diverse evidence that may question the very validity of such dogma.

* Michael Crichton on Consensus: When the physician and writer Dr. Crichton asked, “When did ‘skeptic’ become a dirty word in science?” he answered his own question. When evidence is weak, the status quo appeals to “the consensus” with the aid of “the decline of the media [think Ira Flatow as in NPR's Science Friday] as an independent assessor of fact.” Taking advantage of all that, Krauss appeals to that consensus, as he alleged to us, “All scientists are Darwinists” (apparently, except for the thousands documented at, and as he dismissed the hundreds of scientists who reject the big bang by implying that their expertise was in unrelated disciplines. Please consider, though, that when those who believe in the big bang claim consensus, consensus, there just might be evidence that disproves that consensus.

* Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear."

* Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang: See

* Krauss on Credentials: Within ten seconds Lawrence Krauss contradicted himself, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting the hundreds of scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s and Masters in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also

* Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the Afterword, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not.

* Missing Uniform Distribution of Radioactivity: The materialist theory on the origin of the elements in the periodic table claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars (no longer supernovas, but now neutron stars and even black holes), but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution on Earth, at least throughout the crust, and possibly the mantle too. So in today's otherwise contentious interview, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement that 90% of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is located in the continental crust, and Krauss added, a mystery for him, that it tends to concentrate around granite! That is, that 90% is not in the mantle nor in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but our planet's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. (Further, the release of it's heat has not yet reached a steady state.) Krauss offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally evenly distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, it floated toward the surface. This the bias of this physicist led him to forget, apparently, that it is density, and not size, that causes things to float. Even denser than gold, uranium is one of the most dense elements (excluding atheists and other manmade phenomena). Further, for argument's sake, that would only explain the relative absence of radioactivity deep in the Earth, but would not explain uranium's distancing itself from the mantle and from the oceanic crust, nor its affinity for the continents and even, of all things, for granite. Further, under Krauss' belief in the widespread falsehood that the planet was once molten, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core! The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite.

* Absurd Consistency of Uranium Isotopes IF Formed in Space: Google: origin of Earth's radioactivity. The top-ranked result is Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. See this also at Brown earned his Ph.D. from MIT. He writes:
The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes.
Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global.
"Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton of our day." -Bob Enyart
Last edited: