header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE

 (Read 4034 times)

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27112
  • Liked:
Misconceptions About the Human Genome Project
« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2018, 10:42:41 AM »
The completion of human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.
As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.

98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleadıng Propaganda
First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.
In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man's, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.
In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalization grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.
However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.
On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution . (v.26 pp. 99-1212) However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. (Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32) Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analyzed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %. (1)

Human DNA is Also Similar to That of The Worm, Mosquito and Chicken!
Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.
For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (2) This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.
On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. (3)
On the other hand, the analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. (4)
Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46
These examples certify that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes, and on the contrary, they yield completely opposite results.

Similarities Are Not Evidence For Evolution But For Creation
It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble to one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.
It is possible to explain this subject with an example; all constructions in the world are done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true for living beings as well.
Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

Darwinist-Materialist Misconceptıons About The Human Genome Project
With the announcement of the latest point arrived in the Human Genome Project, some publishing organs in Turkey started to deliver misleading messages and misinform the public so that the impasse the theory of evolution has reached is not further disclosed.
In earlier pages, we mentioned the misleading messages evolutionists delivered about the "genetic similarities" and made clear that these are the subjective interpretations which do not provide any evidence for the theory of evolution. The subject which is mostly promoted and highlighted with different slogans and headlines by the Darwinist-materialist press is the claim that the discovery of the gene map suggests that the fate decreed by God can be challenged. This is a great misconception and deceit put forward by certain circles in our country. The headlines recently appearing in the printed press and the course of discussions in television programs give the impression of a stealthy indoctrination. It is a great mistake to present the information on the human genome project accompanied by messages like "Man will no longer be defeated by his destiny." For in truth, the mapping of the human genes has no relevance whatsoever to the flow of man's fate.

The Flow of Fate Cannot be Changed
Destiny is God's perfect knowledge of all events past or future as a single moment. A majority of people question how God can already know events that have not yet been experienced and this leads them to fail in understanding the fact of destiny. However, "events not yet experienced" are only so for us. God is not bound by time or space, for He Himself has created them. For this reason, past, future, and present are all the same to God; for Him everything has already taken place and finished.
This is true for everyone and every incident. For instance, God has created everyone with a certain lifetime and everyone's moment of death is determined as to its location, time and form in the sight of God. If, in the years to come, the lifetime of a person is extended with timely interventions in the genes, this would not mean that this event defeated that person's destiny. This simply means the following: God gave this man a long life and He made the completion of gene mapping a means for his life being long. The discovery of gene map, that person's living in that era, that person's life being extended by scientific means are all his destiny. All is determined in the sight of God before this person is born into the world.
Similarly, a person whose fatal sickness is cured through the discoveries made within the scope of this project has again not changed his destiny. That is because it is this person's destiny to recover from this illness by means of this project. Consequently, completion of the human genome and the fact that man will be able to intervene in the genetic makeup, do not mean confronting the destiny created by God. On the contrary, this way, humanity follows the developments created for them by God, explores and benefits from the information created by God. If man lives 120 years thanks to these scientific developments, this is surely a lifetime decreed for him by God, this is why he lives so long.
In brief, expressions like "I defeated my destiny", "I changed my destiny" or "I intervened in my destiny" are consequences of ignorance caused by not knowing the fact of fate. On the other hand, a person's using these expressions is also predestined; how, when and under which conditions he will make these statements are all determined in the sight of God.
CLONING A HUMAN BEING OR ANY OTHER LIVING BEING IS NOT CREATING
In some publications, it has been alleged that by the advancement of the science of genetics, human beings would be cloned and therefore, human beings would create human beings. This, too, is a very distorted and farfetched logic. Creating is to bring something into being from nothingness, and this act is peculiar to God alone. The formation of the identical of a living being through the copying of genetic information does not mean that this living being is created. While man or any other living being is cloned, the cells of a living being are taken and copied. However, never has a single living cell been created from nothingness. The researches conducted on this subject have been stopped as they all were inconclusive.
Consequently, the discovery of the human's genetic makeup by no means implies man's challenge to his destiny, and never can it be. Every incident, every speech and development are all predetermined in the sight of God according to a certain destiny. So are scientific developments and the innovations they will introduce. God is All-Knowing, and All-Encompassing.
References:
             
(1) CEN, 19(1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997.
 (2) New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27.
 (3) Hürriyet , 24 February 2000 (Turkey).


--------------------------------------------------------

And right on cure OCD Dawg the resident know it all troll shows up . He ignore that his issues  where addressed. Perhaps if he read what was psoted befor playing his game. Examples from the artilce

Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J. H. Rush states:
Quote
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.2
The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science:
Quote
One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the  second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.3
  As well as this
 
As we have seen, the evolution claim is completely at odds with the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both science and logic. Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their imagination. For instance, science writer Jeremy Rifkin notes that evolution is belived to overwhelm this law of physics with a "magical power":
Quote
The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.5
These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis.
 
 The Misconception About Open Systems
 
 Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems," and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts that invalidate their theory. In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:

Quote
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6
An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
and now his brother joins him in complains about quotes from science journals like  Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Astrobiology, New Scientist, Nature Genetics, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Brain Research - Brain Research Reviews, Trends in Genetics, Biosystems, Microbiological Reviews, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Genetica, Neuroscience & Behavioral Physiology, Cell & Tissue Research, etc., etc., etc. because he does not like the site it is from
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
« Last Edit: November 30, 2018, 05:28:09 PM by DunkingDan »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 42798
  • Liked:
Re: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2018, 10:51:32 AM »
"Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. "


This is a laughably ignorant assertion.  The Second Law applies to a closed system, obviously.  The Earth is not a closed system.

This is ridiculously puerile and ignorant reasoning.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 42798
  • Liked:
Re: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #44 on: November 29, 2018, 10:55:00 AM »

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 42798
  • Liked:
Re: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #45 on: November 29, 2018, 11:16:26 AM »
Yet another pretty clear piece of evidence as to how misleading, wrong, and deceptive these "analyses" are in fact.  

They start with a conclusion and then shade the truth and mischaracterize reality to suit their needs, propaganda obviously, and we see that here from some posters as well.  I call it lying, with intent to deceive.

Anyone with a smattering of understanding of science laughs at this stuff, but not everyone has that of course.

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #46 on: November 29, 2018, 11:31:30 AM »
Yet another pretty clear piece of evidence as to how misleading, wrong, and deceptive these "analyses" are in fact.  

They start with a conclusion and then shade the truth and mischaracterize reality to suit their needs, propaganda obviously, and we see that here from some posters as well.  I call it lying, with intent to deceive.

Anyone with a smattering of understanding of science laughs at this stuff, but not everyone has that of course.
#www.godandscience.org

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 42798
  • Liked:
Re: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2018, 11:33:48 AM »
Yeah, the deceptive portrayal of even very basic science is both underhanded and very inaccurate, and easily dismissed.

The misuse of the Second Law is pretty common in those circles and not something a person with even a smattering of physics would cop to.  It's simply wrong, very simply so.

I view it as lying, though perhaps the authors are just that ignorant.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27112
  • Liked:
THE RHYTHM OF THE ATOMS
« Reply #48 on: December 06, 2018, 04:57:35 PM »
Scientists are in general agreement that, on the basis of calculations, the Big Bang took place about 17 billion years ago. All the matter making up the universe was created from nothingness but with the wonderful design that we talked about in the first two chapters. Nevertheless, the universe that emerged from the Big Bang could have been much different from the one that did emerge-ours.
For example, if the values of four fundamental forces were different, the universe would have consisted of only radiation and become a tissue of light with no stars, galaxies, human beings, or anything else. Thanks to the extraordinary perfect balance of those four forces, "atoms"–the building-blocks of that which is called "matter"–came into being.

 
 "If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?
"1
 
Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical Physics
Scientists are also in general agreement that the first two simplest elements-hydrogen and helium-began to form during the first fourteen seconds after the Big Bang. The elements were formed as a result of a reduction in the universal entropy that was causing matter to scatter everywhere. In other words, at first the universe was just an amassing of hydrogen and helium atoms. If it had remained so, again there could have been no stars, planets, stones, soil, trees, or human beings. It would have been a lifeless universe consisting of only those two elements.
Carbon, the fundamental element of life, is a much heavier element than hydrogen and helium. How did it come into being?
Searching for an answer to this question, scientists stumbled upon one of the most surprising discoveries of this century.
 
 
 The Structure of the Elements

Chemistry is a science that deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and with the transformations that they undergo. The bedrock of modern chemistry is the periodic table of elements. First laid out by Russian chemist Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleyev, the elements in the periodic table are arranged according to their atomic structures. Hydrogen occupies the first place in the table because it is the simplest of all the elements, consisting of only one proton in its nucleus and one electron revolving around it.
Protons are subatomic particles that carry a positive electrical charge in the nucleus of an atom. Helium, with two protons, occupies the second place in the periodic table. Carbon has six protons and oxygen has eight. All the elements differ in the number of protons that they contain.
Another particle present in the nucleus of an atom is the neutron. Unlike protons, neutrons do not carry an electrical charge: they are neutral in other words, hence their name.
The third basic particle of which atoms are composed is the electron, which has a negative electrical charge. In every atom, the number of protons and electrons is the same. Unlike protons and neutrons however, electrons are not located in the nucleus. Instead, they move around the nucleus at a very high speed that keeps the positive and negative charges of the atom apart.
The differences in atomic structure (the numbers of protons/electrons) are what make the elements different from one another.
A crucial rule of (classical) chemistry is that elements cannot be transformed into one another. Changing iron (with twenty-six protons) into silver (with eighteen) would require removing eight protons from the nucleus. But protons are bound together by the strong nuclear force and the number of protons in a nucleus can be changed only in nuclear reactions. Yet all the reactions that take place under terrestrial conditions are chemical reactions that depend on electron exchange and that do not effect the nucleus.
In the Middle Ages there was a "science" called alchemy-the forerunner of modern chemistry. Alchemists, unaware of the periodic table or the atomic structures of the elements, thought it was possible to transform one element into another. (A favorite object of pursuit, for reasons that should be apparent, was trying to turn iron into gold.) We now know that what the alchemists were trying to do is impossible under normal conditions such as exist on Earth: The temperatures and pressures required for such a transformation to take place are too enormous to achieve in any terrestrial laboratory. But it is possible if you have the right place to do it in.
And the right place, it turns out, is in the hearts of stars.
 
The Universe's Alchemy Labs: Red Giants
The temperature required to overcome the reluctance of nuclei to change is nearly 10 million degrees Celsius. This is why "alchemy" in the real sense takes place only in stars. In medium-sized stars like the Sun, the enormous energy being radiated is the result of hydrogen being fused into helium.
Keeping this brief review of the chemistry of elements in mind, let us return to the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang. We mentioned that only helium and hydrogen atoms existed in the universe after the Big Bang. Astronomers believe that solar-type stars (of which the Sun is one) are formed as a result of nebulae (clouds) of hydrogen and helium gas being compressed until the hydrogen-to-helium thermonuclear reaction gets started. So now we have stars. But our universe is still lifeless. For life, heavier elements-oxygen and carbon specifically-are required. There needs to be another process whereby hydrogen and helium can be converted into still other elements.
The "manufacturing-plants" of these heavy elements it turns out are the red giants-a class of stars that are fifty times bigger than the Sun.
Red giants are much hotter than solar-type stars and this characteristic enables them to do something other stars cannot: They convert helium into carbon. Nevertheless, even for a red giant this is not easy. As the astronomer Greenstein says: "Even now, when the answer (as to how they do it) is well in hand, the method they employ seems astonishing." 2
Helium's atomic weight is 2: that is, it has two protons in its nucleus. Carbon's atomic weight is 6. In the fantastically high temperatures of red giants, three helium atoms are fused into a carbon atom. This is the "alchemy" that supplied the universe with its heavier elements after the Big Bang.
But as we said: it's not easy. It's nearly impossible to persuade two helium atoms to join together and quite impossible for three. So how do the six protons needed for carbon get together?
It's a two-step process. First, two helium atoms are fused into an intermediary element with four protons and four neutrons. Next, a third helium is added to this intermediary element to make a carbon atom with six protons and six neutrons.
Helium nucleus
Carbon nucleus
The extraordinarily unstable isotope of beryllium
 that is formed in red giants.
Normal beryllium as found on Earth.
The intermediary element is beryllium. Beryllium occurs naturally on Earth but the beryllium that occurs in red giants is different in a crucially important way: It consists of four protons and four neutrons, whereas terrestrial beryllium has five neutrons. "Red-giant beryllium" is a slightly different version. It's what's called an "isotope" in chemistry.
Now comes the real surprise. The "red-giant" isotope beryllium turns out to be incredibly unstable. Scientists have studied this isotope for years and discovered that once it has formed, it breaks down again in just 0.000000000000001 second.
How is this unstable beryllium isotope, which forms and disintegrates in such a short time, able to unite with a helium atom to become a carbon atom? It is like trying to lay a third brick on two other bricks that shoot away from each other in 0.000000000000001 second if they chance to come atop one another, and form a construction in this way. How does this process take place in red giants? Physicists scratched their heads over this puzzle for decades without coming up with an answer. The American astrophysicist Edwin Salpeter finally discovered a clue to the mystery in the concept of "atomic resonance".
 
Resonance and Double Resonance
Resonance is defined as the harmony of frequencies (vibrations) of two different materials.
A simple example from ordinary experience will give us an idea of what physicists mean by "atomic resonance". Imagine yourself and a child at a playground where there are swings. The child sits on the swing and you give him a push to get him started. To keep the swing moving, you have to keep pushing it from behind. But the timing of these pushes is important. Each time the swing approaches you, you have to apply the force of the push just at the right moment: when the swing is at the highest point of its motion towards you. If you push too soon, the result is a collision that disturbs the rhythmic momentum of the swing; if you push too late, the effort is wasted because the swing is already moving away from you. In other words, the frequency of your pushes must be in harmony with the frequency of the swing's approaches to you.
Physicists refer to such a "harmony of frequencies" as "resonance". The swing has a frequency: for example it reaches you every 1.7 seconds. Using your arms you push it every 1.7 seconds. Of course if you want, you can change the frequency of the swing's motion, but if you do, you have to change the frequency of the pushes as well, otherwise the swing will not swing right. 3
Just as two or more moving bodies can resonate, resonance can also occur when one moving body causes motion in another. This type of resonance is often seen in musical instruments and is called "acoustic resonance". It can occur, for example, among two finely-tuned violins. If one of these violins is played in the same room as the other, the strings of the second will vibrate and produce a sound even though nobody is touching it. Because both instruments have been precisely tuned to the same frequency, a vibration in one causes a vibration in the other. 4
The resonances in these two examples are simple ones and are easy to keep the track of. There are other resonances in physics that are not simple at all and in the case of atomic nuclei, the resonances can be quite complex and sensitive.
Every atomic nucleus has a natural energy level that physicists have been able to identify after lengthy study. These energy levels are quite different from one another but a few rare instances of resonance between atomic nuclei have been observed. When such resonance occurs, the motions of the nuclei are in harmony with one another like our examples of the swing and violin. The important point of this is that the resonance expedites nuclear reactions that can affect the nuclei. 5
Investigating how carbon was made by red giants, Edwin Salpeter suggested that there must be a resonance between helium and beryllium nuclei that facilitated the reaction. This resonance, he said, made it easier for helium atoms to fuse into beryllium and this could account for the reaction in red giants. Subsequent research however failed to support this idea.
Fred Hoyle was the first to discover the amazing equilibrium of nuclear reactions taking place in red giants. Although an atheist, Hoyle admitted that this balance could not be explained by chance and that it was a deliberate arrangement
Fred Hoyle was the second astronomer to address this question. Hoyle took Salpeter's idea a step further, introducing the idea of "double resonance". Hoyle said that there had to be two resonances: one that caused two heliums to fuse into beryllium and one that caused the third helium atom join this unstable formation. Nobody believed Hoyle. The idea of such a precise resonance occurring once was hard enough to accept; that it should occur twice was unthinkable. Hoyle pursued his research for years and in the end he proved that his idea was right: there really was a double resonance taking place in the red giants. At the exact moment two helium atoms resonated in union, a beryllium atom appeared in the 0.000000000000001 second needed to produce carbon. George Greenstein describes why this double resonance is indeed an extraordinary mechanism:
Quote
There are three quite separate structures in this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so smoothly…Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable chain of lucky breaks…It is like discovering deep and complex resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends.6
In the years that followed it was discovered that other elements like oxygen are also formed as a result of such amazing resonances. A zealous materialist, Fred Hoyle's discovery of these "extraordinary transactions" forced him to admit in his book Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars, that such double resonances had to be the result of design and not coincidence. 7 In another article he wrote:
Quote
If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be…A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. 8
Hoyle declared that the inescapable conclusion of this plain truth should not go unnoticed by other scientists.
I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. 9
 
A Lesser Alchemy Lab: The Sun
The sun is a giant nuclear reactor that constantly transforms atoms of hydrogen into helium and produces heat in the process. What is crucial to this process however is the incredible precision with which these reactions are balanced within the sun. The slightest change in any of the forces governing these reactions would result in their failure or in a catastrophic runaway explosion.
The conversion of helium into carbon described above is the alchemy of red giants. In smaller stars like our sun, a simpler sort of alchemy takes place. The sun converts hydrogen into helium and this reaction is the source of its energy.
This reaction is no less essential for us to exist than are the reactions in the red giants. Moreover, the sun's nuclear reaction is also a designed process, just like the one in red giants.
Single-proton hydrogen nuclei 
Helium nucleus with two protons and two nueutrons
Hydrogen, the input element for this reaction, is the simplest element in the universe for its nucleus consists of a single proton. In a helium nucleus, there are two protons and two neutrons. The process taking place in the sun is the fusion of four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom.
An enormous amount of energy is released during this process. Nearly all the thermal and light energy reaching Earth is the result of this solar nuclear reaction.
 
THE CRITICAL REACTION IN THE SUN
1) Above: Four hydrogen atoms in the sun join together to form a single helium atom.
2) Below1: This is a two-step process. First two hydrogen atoms fuse forming a deuteron. This transformation is a slow one and is what keeps the sun burning constantly.
3) Below2: If the strong nuclear force were just a little bit stronger, a di-proton would be formed instead of a deuteron. Such a reaction however cannot be sustained for any length of time: a runaway catastrophic explosion would occur in just a few seconds.
Single-proton hydrogen nuclei
Deutron nucleus with one proton and one neutron
Single-proton hydrogen nuclei
Di-proton nucleus with two proton
Like the reactions taking place in red giants, this solar nuclear reaction turns out to involve a number of unexpected aspects without which it could not take place. You can't simply jam four hydrogen atoms together and turn them into helium. To make this happen, a two-step process is required, paralleling the one taking place in red giants. In the first step, two hydrogen atoms combine to form an intermediary nucleus called deuteron consisting of one proton and one neutron.
What force could be great enough to produce a deuteron by jamming two nuclei together? This force is the "strong nuclear force", one of the four fundamental forces of the universe mentioned in the previous section. This is the most powerful physical force in the universe and is billions of billions of billions of billions times stronger than the gravitational force. Nothing but this force could unite two nuclei like this.
Now the really curious thing about all this is that research shows that, strong as it is, the strong nuclear force is just barely strong enough to do what it does. If it were even slightly weaker than it is, it would not be able to unite the two nuclei. Instead, two protons nearing each other would repel each other immediately and the reaction in the sun fizzle out before it ever began. In other words, the sun would not exist as an energy-radiating star. Concerning this, George Greenstein says: "Had the strong force had been only slightly less strong, the light of the world would have never been lit." 10
What, on the other hand, if the strong nuclear force were stronger? To answer that, we first have to look at the process of converting two hydrogen atoms into a deuteron in a little more detail. First, one of the protons is stripped of its electrical charge and becomes a neutron. This neutron forms a deuteron by uniting with a proton. The force causing this unification is the "strong nuclear force"; the force that converts a proton into a neutron on the other hand is a different one and is called the "weak nuclear force". It is weak only by comparison however and it takes about ten minutes to make the conversion. At the atomic level, this is an immensely long time and it has the effect of slowing down the rate at which the reaction in the sun takes place.
Let us now return to our question: What would happen if the strong nuclear force were stronger? The answer is that the reaction in the sun would be changed dramatically because the weak nuclear force would be eliminated from the reaction.
If the strong nuclear force were any stronger than it is, it would be able to fuse two protons to one another immediately and without having to wait ten minutes for a proton to be converted into a neutron. As a result of this reaction, there would be one nucleus with two protons instead of a deuteron. Scientists call such a nucleus a "di-proton". It is a theoretical particle however insofar as it has never been observed to occur naturally. But if the strong nuclear force were much stronger than it is, then there would be real di-protons in the sun. So what? Well by getting rid of the proton-to-neutron conversion, we would be eliminating the "throttle" that keeps the sun's "engine" running as slowly as it does. George Greenstein explains what the result of that would be:
Quote
The Sun would change because the first stage in the formation of helium would no longer be the formation of the deuteron. It would be the formation of the di-proton. And this reaction would not involve the transformation of a proton into a neutron at all. The role of the weak force would be eliminated, and only the strong force would be involved…and as a result the Sun's fuel would suddenly become very good indeed. It would become so powerful, so ferociously reactive, that the Sun and every other star like it would instantaneously explode. 11
The explosion of the sun would cause the world and everything on it to burst into flames, burning our blue planet to a crisp in a few seconds. Because the strong nuclear force is precisely fine-tuned to be neither too strong nor too weak, the sun's nuclear reaction is slowed down and the star has been able to radiate light and energy for billions of years. This precise tuning is what makes it possible for mankind to live. If there were even the slightest deviation in this arrangement, the stars (including our sun) would not exist or if they did, they would explode in a short time.
Protons and Electrons
Both the mass and the volume of a proton are incomparably larger than those of an electron but, strangely enough, these two particles have equal (though opposite) electrical charges. Because of this fact, atoms are electrically neutral.
So far we have been examining matters concerned with forces that affect atomic nuclei. There is another important equilibrium in the atom that we must consider: the balance between its nucleus and electrons.
Put in its simplest terms, electrons revolve around the nucleus. The reason for this is electrical charge. Electrons have a negative charge and protons have a positive charge. Opposite charges attract, so an atom's electrons are drawn towards the nucleus. But the electrons are also moving at an enormous speed which would, under normal conditions, cause them to shoot away from the nucleus. These two forces (attraction and motion away) are balanced so that the electrons move in orbits around the nucleus.
Atoms are also balanced in terms of their electric charges: the number of orbiting electrons is the same as the number of protons in the nucleus. (For example, oxygen has eight protons and eight electrons.) In this way the electrical force of an atom is balanced and the atom is electrically neutral.
So far, so much basic chemistry. However there is a point in this seemingly simple structure that is overlooked by many. A proton is much bigger than an electron in terms of both size and weight. If an electron were the size of a walnut, a proton would be about the size of a man. Physically, they are quite dissimilar.
But their electrical charges are the same size!
Although their electrical charges are opposite (electrons negative, protons positive) they are also equal. There is no obvious reason why this should be so. Conceivably (and "logically") an electron ought to carry a much smaller charge because it is so much smaller.
But if that were true, then what would happen?
What would happen is that every atom in the universe would be positively charged instead of being electrically neutral. And because like charges repel, every atom in the universe would try and repel every other atom. Matter as we know it could not exist.
What would happen if it suddenly became true now? What would happen if every atom were to start repelling every other?
Quite extraordinary things would happen. Let us begin with the changes that would occur in your body. The moment this change occurred, your hands and your arms holding this book would shatter at once. And not just your hands and arms but also your body, your legs, your eyes, your teeth-every part of your body would explode in a split second.
The room you sit in and the world around you would explode in a moment. All the seas, mountains, the planets in the solar system, and all the stars and galaxies in the universe would shatter into atomic dust. And there would never again be anything in the universe to observe. The universe would become a mass of disorganized atoms pushing each other around.
By how much would the sizes of the electrical charges of protons and electrons have to differ in order for this dreadful thing to happen? One percent? A tenth of one percent? George Greenstein addresses this question in The Symbiotic Universe:
Small things like stones, people, and the like would fly apart if the two charges differed by as little as one part in 100 billion. Larger structures like the Earth and the Sun require for their existence a yet more perfect balance of one part in a billion billion. 12
Here is yet another precisely-tuned equilibrium that proves that the universe is intentionally designed and created for a particular purpose. As John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler maintain in their book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", "there is a grand design in the Universe that favours the development of intelligent life."13

References:
                                       
1 Paul Davies, Superforce, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984, p. 235-236
 2 George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, p. 38
 3 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1995
 4. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1995
 5. The resonance mentioned here occurs as follows: when two atom nuclei fuse, the
 new emerging nucleus both takes on the total of the massive energy of the two nuclei
 forming it and their kinetic energy. This new nucleus works to reach a particular
 energy level within the atom's natural energy ladder. However, this is only possible if
 the total energy it receives corresponds to this level of energy. If it fails to correspond,
 then the new nucleus decomposes at once. For the new nucleus to attain stability,
 the accumulated energy in its body and the level of natural energy it forms should be
 equal to each other. When this equality is attained the "resonance" occurs. However
 this resonance is a highly rare harmony with a very low probability to be achieved.
 6. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
 7. Paul Davies. The Final Three Minutes, New York: BasicBooks, 1994, p. 49-50
 (Quoted from Hoyle)
 8. Fred Hoyle, "The Universe:Past and Present Reflections", Engineering and
 Science, November 1981, pp. 8-12
 9. Fred Hoyle, Religion and the Scientists, London: SCM, 1959; M. A. Corey, The
 Natural History of Creation, Maryland: University Press of America, 1995, p. 341
 10. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, p. 100
 11. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, p. 100
 12. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, p. 64-65
 13. W. Press, "A Place for Teleology?", Nature, vol. 320, 1986, p. 315
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27112
  • Liked:
THE ORDER IN THE SKIES
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2018, 11:43:28 AM »
During the night of July 4th in 1054, Chinese astronomers witnessed an extraordinary event: a very bright star that suddenly appeared near the constellation Taurus. It was so bright that it could easily be seen even in daytime. At night it was brighter than the moon.

The gigantic explosions known as supernova cause matter to move throughout the universe. The enormous distances between the universe's stars and galaxies moderate the risk that such an explosion will affect other bodies.
What Chinese astronomers observed was one of the most interesting and catastrophic astronomic
phenomena in our universe. It was a supernova.
A supernova is a star that is shattered by an explosion. A huge star destroys itself in an immense blast and the material of its core is scattered in every direction. The light produced during this event is a thousand times brighter than normal.
Scientists today think that supernovas play a key role in the formation of the universe. These explosions are what cause different elements to be carried to different parts of the universe. It is supposed that the material ejected by these explosions subsequently combines to form a new galaxy or a star somewhere else in the universe. According to this hypothesis, our solar system, the sun and its planets including Earth, are the products of some incredibly ancient supernova.
Although supernovas may seem to be ordinary explosions, they in fact are minutely structured in their details. In Nature's Destiny Michael Denton writes:
The distance between supernovae and indeed between all stars is critical for other reasons. If the distance between stars in our galaxy was much less, planetary orbits would be destabilized. If it was much more, then the debris thrown out by a supernova would be so diffusely distributed that planetary systems like our own would in all probability never form. If the cosmos is to be a home for life, then the flickering of the supernovae must occur at a very precise rate and the average distance between them, and indeed between all stars, must be very close to the actual observed figure. (2)
The ratio of supernovas and stars' distances are just two more of the fine-tuned details of this miraculous universe. Examining deeper the universe the arrangement we see is beautiful both in the organization and design.

Why is There So Much Space?
The universe following the Big Bang was a nebula of just hydrogen and helium. Heavier elements were produced later by means of intentionally-designed nuclear reactions. Yet the existence of heavier elements is not a sufficient reason for the universe to become a suitable place for life. A much more important issue is how the universe was formed and ordered.
We shall start by asking how big the universe is.
The planet Earth is a part of the solar system. In this system there are nine major planets with fifty-four satellites, and an uncounted number of asteroids all revolving around a single star called "Sun", a middle-sized star compared with others in the universe. Earth is the third planet from the sun.
Let us first try to understand the size of this system. The diameter of the sun is 103 times that of the earth. To visualize this, the planet Earth has diameter of 12,200 kms. If we scaled that down to the dimensions of a glass bead, the sun would be about the size of soccer ball. But the interesting thing is the distance between the two. Keeping to the same scale, the two balls should be 280 meters apart. Some of the objects representing the outer planets would have to be set several kilometers away.
Big though this might seem, the solar system is a quite miniscule in size compared with the Milky Way, the galaxy in which it is located. There are over 250 billion stars in the Milky Way-some similar to the sun, others bigger, others smaller. The star nearest to the sun is Alpha Centauri. If we wanted to add Alpha Centauri in our model system, it would have to be located 78,000 kilometers away.
That's too big for almost anyone to grasp, so let's reduce the scale. We'll assume the earth to be as big as a dust-particle. That would make the sun as big as a walnut about three meters from the earth. On this scale, Alpha Centauri would have to be located 640 kilometers from the sun.
The Milky Way consists of about 250 billion stars with similarly mind-boggling distances between them. The sun is located closer to the edge of this spiral-shaped galaxy than it is to the center.
Even the Milky Way is dwarfed by the vast size of the whole universe. It is just one of many galaxies-nearly 300 billion of them according to recent calculations. And the distances between galaxies are millions of times greater than that between the sun and Alpha Centauri.
George Greenstein, in The Symbiotic Universe, comments on this unimaginable vastness:
Had the stars been somewhat closer, astrophysics would not have been so very different. The fundamental physical processes occurring within stars, nebulas, and the like would have proceeded unchanged. The appearance of our galaxy as seen from some far-distant vantage point would have been the same. About the only difference would have been the view of the night time sky from the grass on which I lie, which would have been yet richer with stars. And oh, yes-one more small change: There would have been no me to do the viewing…All that waster space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety. (3)
Greenstein also explains the reason for this. In his view, the huge distances in space makes it possible for certain physical variables to be arranged so as to be exactly suitable for human life. He also notes the importance of this huge space in allowing Earth to exist while minimizing the risk of collision with other stars.
In short, the distribution of celestial bodies in space is exactly what it must be for human life to exist on our planet. These huge spaces are the outcome of an intentional design for a purpose and not a result of coincidence.

Entropy and Order
In order to understand the concept of order in the universe, we need first to talk about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the fundamental universal physical laws.
This law states that, left to themselves, organized systems will become unstable and less organized as time advances. This law is also called the Law of Entropy. In physics, entropy is the amount of disorder in a system. The transition of a system from a stable condition into an unstable condition is the same as an increase in its entropy. The instability is directly related to the entropy of that system.
This is commonplace knowledge, many examples of which we may observe in our daily lives. If you abandon a car in some exposed place for a year or even a couple of months, you certainly wouldn't expect it be in just as good condition as you left it when you return. You'll probably notice flat tires, broken windows, corroded parts in the engine and body, etc. Similarly if you neglect to straighten up your house for a few days and you'll immediately see it getting dustier and more disorganized as time goes by. This is a kind of entropy; however you can undo it by cleaning and picking things up and by taking out the trash.

An abandoned car deteriorates and falls apart. Everything in the universe is subject to entropy: the law says that, left to itself, everything becomes less stable and less organized with the passage of time.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is widely accepted as valid and binding. Einstein, the most important scientist of our century, said that this law was the "first law of all sciences". The American scientist Jeremy Rifkin comments in Entropy: A New World View:
The Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science: Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe. (4)
It is important to note that the Law of Entropy by itself renders many of the claims of materialism invalid right from the start. For if there is a definite design and order in the universe, the law holds that, in the course of time, this situation will be undone by the universe itself. There are two conclusions to be reached from this observation:
1) Left to itself, the universe cannot exist for eternity. The second law says that without external intervention of some sort, entropy will eventually be maximized throughout the universe causing it to assume a completely homogenous state.
2) The claim that the order we observe is not the result of external intervention is also invalid. Immediately after the Big Bang, the universe was in precisely such a completely disorganized state as would exist if entropy had been maximized. But that has changed as we can plainly see by looking around. That change took place in violation of one of nature's fundamental laws-the Law of Entropy. There is simply no way to account for this change except to posit some sort of supernatural creation.

Every galaxy in the universe is proof of the organized structure that everywhere exists. These magnificent systems, with an average of 300 billion stars each, display an evident balance and harmony.
An example will perhaps make the second point clearer. Imagine the universe to be a huge cave full of a jumble of water, rocks, and dirt. We leave the cave alone for several billion years and then come back and take a look at it. Upon our return we notice that some of the rocks have gotten smaller, some have disappeared, the level of dirt is higher, there's more mud, and so on. Things are more disordered, which is normal-just as we might expect. If, billions of years later, you find rocks delicately carved into statues, you would definitely decide that this order cannot be explained away by laws of nature. The only rational explanation is that "a conscious mind" caused these things to be.
So the order of this universe is the most overwhelming proof of the existence of a superior consciousness. The Nobel prize winner German physicist Max Planck explains the order in the universe:
At all events, we should say, in summing up, that, according to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order prevails - one independent of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain through our senses, this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe. (5)
Paul Davies explains the triumph of this marvelous equilibrium and harmony over materialism thus:

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER PHYSICIST MAX PLANCK:
 "A certain order prevails in our universe. This order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity"
Everywhere we look in the Universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order... Central to the idea of a very special, orderly Universe is the concept of information. A highly structured system, displaying a great deal of organised activity, needs a lot of information to describe it. Alternatively, we may say that it contains much information.
We are therefore presented with a curious question. If information and order always has a natural tendency to disappear, where did all the information that makes the world such a special place come from originally? The Universe is like a clock slowly running down. How did it get wound up in the first place? (6)
Einstein refers to this order as an unexpected event, and also says that it should be regarded as a miracle:
Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence... [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the 'miracle' that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge. (7)
In short, the order in the universe demands deep and extensive understanding and knowledge. It is designed, organized, and preserved by God.

The Solar System

ALBERT EINSTEIN:
 "We find in the objective world a high degree of order."
The solar system is one of the most wonderful examples of this beautiful harmony to be witnessed. There are nine planets with fifty-four known satellites and an unknown number of smaller bodies. The major planets counting outward from the sun are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Earth is the only one on which life is known to exist. It is surely the only one on which human beings can live and survive unaided thanks to abundant land and water and to a breathable atmosphere.

Isaac Newton, one of the pioneers and founders of modern physics and astronomy, saw in the structure of the universe magnificent evidence of divine creation.
In the structure of the solar system, we encounter another beautiful example of equilibrium: the balance between a planet's centrifugal force countered by the gravitational attraction of its primary. (In astronomy, a primary is something that another body revolves about. Earth's primary is the sun; the moon's primary is Earth.) Without this balance, everything in the solar system would fly off into the chilling depths of outer space. The balance between these two forces results in paths (orbits) that the planets and other bodies follow around their primaries. If a body moved at too slow a speed, it would plunge into the primary; if it moved at too fast a speed, the primary would be unable to hold onto it, and it would fly off into space. Instead, every body moves at just the right speed to keep it in orbit. Moreover, this equilibrium has to be different for each body because the distance of planets to the sun differs. So do their masses. Therefore, they have to have different orbital speeds not to plunge into the sun or not to fly off into space.
Materialist astronomy holds that the origin and survival of the solar system can be explained by coincidence.
Over the last three centuries, many of its adherents have speculated on how this marvelous order should have come to pass and they have failed to get anywhere. To a materialist, the equilibrium and order of the solar system are inexplicable mysteries.
Astronomers like Kepler and Galileo, among the first to discover this superlative equilibrium, acknowledged it as a deliberate design and a sign of divine intervention in the whole universe. Isaac Newton, recognized as one of the greatest scientific minds of all times, once wrote:
This most elegant system of suns, planets, and comets could arise from the purpose and sovereignty of an intelligent and mighty being…He rules them all, not as a soul but as a sovereign lord of all things, and because of His sovereignty He is commonly called "Lord God Almighty." (8)

The Place of the Earth
Besides this wonderful equilibrium, the place of earth in the solar system and in the universe is also another piece of evidence of a perfect act of creation on God's part.
The latest astronomical findings have shown the importance of the other planets' existence for Earth. Jupiter's size and position turn for example out to be critical. Astrophysical calculations show that, as the biggest planet in the system, Jupiter supplies stability to the orbits of Earth and all the other planets. Jupiter's protective role over the earth is explained in an article "How special Jupiter is" by George Wetherill:
Without a large planet positioned precisely where Jupiter is, the earth would have been struck a thousand times more frequently in the past by comets and meteors and other interplanetary debris. If it were not for Jupiter, we wouldn't be around to study the origin of the solar system. (9)
To put it briefly, the structure of the solar system was specially designed for mankind to live.
Let us also consider the place of solar system in the universe. Our solar system is located in one of the huge spiral arms of the Milky Way, closer to the edge than to the center. What advantage could there be in that? In Nature's Destiny, Michael Denton explains:
What is so striking is that the cosmos appears to be not just supremely fit for our own being and for our biological adaptations, but also for our understanding... Because of the position of our solar system on the edge of the galactic rim, we can gaze farther into the night to distant galaxies and gain knowledge of the overall structure of the cosmos. Were we positioned in the center of a galaxy, we would never look on the beauty of a spiral galaxy nor would we have any idea of the structure of our universe. (10)
In other words, even Earth's location in the galaxy is evidence that it was intended for mankind to live on, no less than are all the other physics laws of the universe.
It is the plain truth that the universe is created and arranged by God.
References:
                               
1. Guy Murchie, The Seven Mysteries of Life, Boston : The Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p. 598  
 2. Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 11  
 3. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, p. 21  
 4. Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, New York , Viking Press, 1980, p. 6  
 5. Max Planck, May 1937 address, quoted in A. Barth, The Creation (1968), p. 144.  
 6. Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, (1982) Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Preface  
 7. Albert Einstein, Letters to Maurice Solovine, 1956, p. 114-115  
 8. Michael A. Corey, God and the New Cosmology: The Anthropic Design Argument, Maryland : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993, p. 259  
 9. G. W. Wetherill, "How Special is Jupiter?", Nature, vol. 373, 1995, p. 470  
 10. Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 262        

Link
       

And right on cue OCD Dawg the resident know it all troll shows up . 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/  :34:
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 12:05:19 PM by DunkingDan »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 42798
  • Liked:
Re: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2018, 11:52:58 AM »
I find it odd to cite quotes of folks who are quasi-Deists and did not believe in a personal God et al. to find support for existence of a Creator, to me anyway.

This is clearly a matter of Faith, is it not?


DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27112
  • Liked:
Discrepancy of genetic and fossil appearance dates
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2018, 06:41:19 PM »
Paleontologists believe that vertebrates diverged from a lancelet-like relative sometime in the Cambrian period, which began 545 million years ago. However, molecular studies of gene similarities between lancelets and today's vertebrates suggest that the vertebrate lineage diverged 750 million years ago. Recent fossil finds do not resolve this discrepancy. Haikouella, sliver-shaped lancelet-like organisms that have eyes and probably have a primitive brain, have been dated to 530 million years ago. Recently discovered conodonts, previously classified into a number of different phyla, seem to be full-fledged vertebrates, even more similar to living jawed fish than to lampreys or hagfish. However, these fossils date to 510 million years ago at the earliest.

Zimmer, C. 2000. In Search of Vertebrate Origins: Beyond Brain and Bone. Science 287: 1576-1579.
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 42798
  • Liked:
Re: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2018, 07:19:48 PM »
https://www.space.com/41142-what-are-neutrinos-why-they-matter.html

your body is pummeled by about 100 trillion neutrinos every second. And scientists think the weird particles may hold the key to some of the biggest mysteries about the universe, including why matter won out over antimatter early after the Big Bang.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 42798
  • Liked:

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27112
  • Liked:
Re: FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2018, 10:28:09 AM »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27112
  • Liked:
Really quickly evolving dino
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2018, 05:53:59 PM »
A recent study has demonstrated that reptiles disappeared and the giant carnivorous dinosaurs replaced them within a period of  less than 10,000 years of the Triassic-Jurassic boundary and only 30,000 years after the last Triassic taxa, which were eliminated by a mass extinction event, probably due to an asteroid collision. The rate of evolution of these dinosaurs is almost beyond belief. Of course, it all fits into one or another of the current evolutionary theories. Maybe we should try to short-circuit a near-earth asteroid to repeat the experiment and see if evolution really works that fast!

P. E. Olsen, et al. 2002. Ascent of Dinosaurs Linked to an Iridium Anomaly at the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary. Science 296: 1305-1307.
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.