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: Sometimes the good guys win...

 (Read 545 times)

KingKongGodzilla

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2020, 02:13:14 PM »
There are no tenets to atheism beyond a commitment to science and rationalism. 
Hmmm? Except atheists are now trying to teach us 2+2=5.
 

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11449
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2020, 02:26:44 PM »
Science has a long history of saying "Hey, you know what I've been saying for the last 400yrs or so (pick a time frame), forget all that. I was wrong but this time, finally, I got it right."
It was the Church that branded Galileo as heretical when he said the earth revolved around the sun.  

Science has evolved and is self-correcting.  Religion is dogmatic and presumes to already have the answers.  




fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11449
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2020, 02:31:02 PM »
Hmmm? Except atheists are now trying to teach us 2+2=5.
No, it's the theologians that have taught you to defy reason.  

They have made you believe virgin-born people can rise from the dead after 3 days.  They've made the Muslim believe martyrdom is a one-way ticket to Heaven.  

Atheists are simply people who, despite the myriad pressures to conform, simply cannot convince themselves that 2+2=5.  


VolRage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4328
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2020, 02:37:13 PM »
When you consider the requirement of proof/ evidence most people require for belief in anything non-religious, and compare it to the actual evidence there is for ANY god, much less the specific Christian god, it really is baffling that anyone can make the statement "the evidence for god is overwhelming".
So there is enough evidence for the Big Bang evolution theory? So every living thing came from pond scum? Science has supposedly proved that man came from apes. Ok 😂😂😂
My personal favorite is the evolution of the whale. Man to believe that one you’d have to possess an IQ below 60.

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11449
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2020, 03:10:54 PM »
So there is enough evidence for the Big Bang evolution theory?
 
Yes.

So every living thing came from pond scum?

Single cell organisms - charlatans using phrases like "pond scum" reveal their own closed-mindedness.  

Science has supposedly proved that man came from apes. 

We are apes.    

My personal favorite is the evolution of the whale.  Man to believe that one you’d have to possess an IQ below 60.

Oh, so that one just too much for you to fathom?  

The lower one's IQ the more likely they are to accept a theological explanation over a scientific one - never forget that when you're doling out insults.   

KingKongGodzilla

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #33 on: September 17, 2020, 03:28:10 PM »
It was the Church that branded Galileo as heretical when he said the earth revolved around the sun. 
Science has evolved and is self-correcting.  Religion is dogmatic and presumes to already have the answers. 
Yes, religion can be dogmatic. And?
Remember when Science thought the Earth was flat.
Except wise men knew the Earth was not flat, but spherical.
The evidence? Ships appearing on the horizon.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 03:34:33 PM by KingKongGodzilla »

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27167
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #34 on: September 17, 2020, 03:28:27 PM »
So there is enough evidence for the Big Bang evolution theory?
 
Yes.

An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the Necessary Parameters for Life Support

[th]Parameter[/th]
[th]Probability that feature will fall in the required range[/th]

galaxy size
.1

galaxy type
.1

galaxy location
.1

star location relative to galactic center
.2

star distance from closest spiral arm
.1

z-axis extremes of star's orbit
.1

proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
.01

timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
.01

number of stars in system
.2

star birth date
.2

star age
.4

star metallicity
.05

star orbital eccentricity
.1

star's distance from galactic plane
.1

star mass
.001

star luminosity relative to speciation
.0001

star color
.4

3H+ production
.1

supernovae rates and locations
.01

white dwarf binary types, rates, and locations
.01

planetary distance from star
.001

inclination of planetary orbit
.5

planetary axis tilt
.3

rate of change of axial tilt
.01

planetary rotation period
.1

rate of change in planetary rotation period
.05

planetary orbit eccentricity
.3

surface gravity (escape velocity)
.001

tidal force
.1

magnetic field
.01

albedo
.1

density
.1

planetary crust thickness
.01

oceans-to-continents ratio
.2

rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio
.1

global distribution of continents
.3

frequency and extent of ice ages
.1

asteroid and comet collision rate
.1

change in asteroid and comet collision rates
.1

mass of body colliding with primordial Earth
.002

timing of collision with primordial Earth
.05

rate of change in asteroid/comet collision rate
.1

proximity and mass of Jupiter
.01

major planet eccentricities
.1

major planet orbital instabilities
.1

drift rate and rate change of major planets
.1

atmospheric transparency
.01

atmospheric pressure
.1

atmospheric electric discharge rate
.1

atmospheric temperature gradient
.01

carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
.01

oxygen level in atmosphere
.01

chlorine level in atmosphere
.1

iron quantity in oceans
.1

tropospheric ozone quantity
.01

stratospheric ozone quantity
.01

mesospheric ozone quantity
.01

water vapor level in atmosphere
.01

oxygen-to-nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
.1

quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere
.01

frequency and extent of forest and grass fires
.01

soil mineralization
.1

quantity of sea-salt aerosols
.1

quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil
.01

quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil
.01

quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil
.01

quantity of sulfur in soil
.1

quantity of sulfur in planet's core
.1

tectonic activity
.1

volcanic activity
.1

decline in volcanic activity
.1

viscosity of Earth's core at core boundaries
.01

biomass to comet-infall ratio
.01

regularity of cometary infall
.1

dependency factors (estimate)
100,000,000,000

longevity requirements (estimate)
.00001


Probability for combined occurrence of all 75 parameters = 10-99
Maximum possible number of planets in universe = 1023

And that by itself is greater than what is In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability”.

 and another


THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM
The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase “extremely unlikely” is inadequate to describe this possibility.


10000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
1000000000000000000000000000000000
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose’s answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.


Roger Penrose: “This number tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been.”
Or consider: 13 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it’s called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability”. Penrose’s number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose’s number tells us that the ‘accidental” or “coincidental” creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
Quote
Quote
This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0′s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each  separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. 1

then there is this data
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
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: 27167
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #35 on: September 17, 2020, 03:29:16 PM »
It was the Church that branded Galileo as heretical when he said the earth revolved around the sun. 

Science has evolved and is self-correcting.  Religion is dogmatic and presumes to already have the answers. 
https://www.cfb51.com/area-51/retelling-the-story-of-science/msg254755/#msg254755
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.”

KingKongGodzilla

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2020, 03:30:43 PM »
Atheists are simply people who, despite the myriad pressures to conform, simply cannot convince themselves that 2+2=5. 
Yet, it's atheists trying to convince us 2+2=5.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27167
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #37 on: September 17, 2020, 03:31:04 PM »
So there is enough evidence for the Big Bang evolution theory?
 
Yes.
Something else has to be behind things, somehow guiding them. And that, one might say, is a kind of mathematical proof of divinity.
Guy Marchie, American Science Writer (1)
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 
 

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: 27167
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2020, 03:32:31 PM »
So there is enough evidence for the Big Bang evolution theory?
 

The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.
Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical Physics (1)
Scientists estimate that there are over 300 billion galaxies in the whole universe. These galaxies have a number of different forms (spiral, elliptical, etc) and each contains about as many stars as the universe contains galaxies. One of these stars, the Sun, has nine major planets rotating around in it in great harmony. All of us live on the third of those planets counting from the sun.
Look about you: Does what you see appear to be a disordered jumble of matter haphazardly scattered this way and that? Of course not. But how could matter have formed organized galaxies if it had been dispersed randomly? Why has matter accumulated at certain points and formed stars? How could the delicate balance of our solar system have emerged from a violent explosion? These are very important questions and they lead us to the real question of how the universe was structured after the Big Bang.

If the Big Bang was indeed a such cataclysmic explosion then it is reasonable to expect that matter should have been scattered everywhere at random. And yet it is not. Instead it is organized into planets, and stars, and galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies. It is as if a bomb that exploded in a granary caused all the wheat to fall into neat sacks and bales on the backs of trucks ready to be delivered instead of showering the grains every which way. Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the Big Bang theory for years, expressed his own surprise at this structure:
The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect- with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies. (2)
That the matter produced by the Big Bang should have formed such tidy and organized shapes is indeed an extraordinary thing. The occurrence of such a harmony leads us to the realization that the universe was the result of its perfect creation by God.
In this chapter we will examine and consider this extraordinary perfection and excellence.
The Speed of the Explosion
People hearing of the Big Bang but not considering the subject at length do not think about what an extraordinary plan must lie behind this explosion. That's because the notion of an explosion doesn't suggest harmony, plan, or organization to most people. In fact there are a number of very puzzling aspects to the intricate order in the Big Bang.
One of these puzzles has to do with the acceleration caused by the explosion. When the explosion took place, matter certainly must have begun moving at an enormous speed in every direction. But there is another point that we need to pay attention to here. There must also have been a very big attractive force at the first moment of the explosion: an attractive force that was strong enough to gather the whole universe into one point.


Paul Davies: "The evidence is strong enough to acknowledge the existence of a conscious cosmic design."
Two different and opposing forces are at work here. The force of the explosion, driving matter outward and away, and the force of attraction, trying to resist the first and pull everything back together. The universe came into being because these two forces were in equilibrium. If the attractive force had been greater than the explosive, the universe would have collapsed. If the opposite had been true, matter would have been splattered in every direction in a way never to unite again.
Then how sensitive was this equilibrium? How much "slack" could there have been between the two forces?
The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10-18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:
Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude. (3)
Bilim Teknik (Science Technique, a Turkish scientific periodical) quotes an article that appeared in Science in which the phenomenal equilibrium that obtained in the initial phase of universe is stated:
If the density of the universe was a little bit more, in that case, according to Einstein's relativity theory, the universe would not be expanding due to the attraction forces of atomic particles but contracting, ultimately diminishing to a spot. If the initial density had been a little bit less, then the universe would rapidly be expanding, but in this case, atomic particles would not be attracting each other and no stars and no galaxies would ever have formed. Consequently, man would never come into existence! According to the calculations, the difference between the initial real density of the universe and its critical density, which is unlikely to occur, is less than one percent's one quadrillion. This is similar to place a pencil in a position so that it can stand on its sharp end even after one billion years… Furthermore, as the universe expands, this equilibrium becomes more delicate. (4)
Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:
If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. (5)
What then does such a remarkable equilibrium as this indicate? The only rational answer to that question is that it is proof of conscious design and cannot possibly be accidental. Despite his own materialist bent, Dr Davies admits this himself:
It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design. (6)
The Four Forces
If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life. (7)
The speed of the Big Bang's explosion is only one of the remarkable states of equilibrium at the initial moment of creation. Immediately after the Big Bang, forces that underpin and organize the universe we live in had to be numerically "just right" otherwise there would have been no universe.
These are the "four fundamental forces" that are recognized by modern physics. All structure and motion in the universe is governed by these four forces, known as the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. The strong and weak nuclear forces operate only at the atomic scale. The remaining two-the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force-govern assemblages of atoms, in other words "matter". These four fundamental forces were at work in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang and resulted in the creation of atoms and matter.
A comparison of those forces is enlightening for their values are stunningly different from one another. Below they are given in international standard units:
Strong nuclear force: 15
Weak nuclear force: 7.03 x 10-3
Electromagnetic force: 3.05 x 10-12
Gravitational force: 5.90 x 10-39
Notice how great are the differences in the strengths of these four fundamental forces. The difference between the strongest (strong nuclear force) and the weakest (gravitational force) is about 25 followed by 38 zeros! Why should this be so?
The molecular biologist Michael Denton addresses this question in his book, Nature's Destiny:
Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for people to live:
Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision. (8)
Arno Penzias, who was the first, along with Robert Wilson to detect the cosmic background radiation (for which discovery the pair received a Nobel prize in 1965), comments on the beautiful design in the universe:
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has underlying (one might say "supernational") plan. (9)
The scientists we have just quoted have all drawn an important conclusion from their observations. Examining and thinking about the incredible balances and their beautiful order in the design of universe inevitably leads one to a truth: There exists in this universe a superior design and a perfect harmony. Unquestionably the Author of this design and harmony is God, Who has created everything flawlessly.
The Mathematics of Probability Refutes "Coincidence"
What has been said so far shows the extraordinary balances among the forces that make human life possible in this universe. The speed of the Big Bang's explosion, the values of the four fundamental forces, and all the other variables that we will be examining in the chapters ahead and which are vital for existence have been arranged according to an extraordinary precision.
Let us now make a brief digression and consider the coincidence theory of materialism. Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability. Let's do so.
THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM
The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

10000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
10 00000000000000000000000000000000
 
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

Roger Penrose: "This number tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been."
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. (10)
The numbers defining the design and plan of the universe's equilibrium play a crucial role and exceed comprehension. They prove that the universe is by no means the product of a coincidence, and show us "how precise the Creator's aim must have been" as Penrose stated.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power.
Seeing the Plain Truth
20th-century science has come up with categorical evidence that the universe was created by God. The anthropic principle that we mentioned before reveals every detail of a universe that has been designed for mankind to live in and in which there is no place for chance.
The interesting part is that the ones who discovered all this and came to the conclusion that the universe couldn't possibly have come into being by accident are the very same people who defend the philosophy of materialism. Scientists such as Paul Davies, Arno Penzias, Fred Hoyle and Roger Penrose are not pious men and they certainly had no intention of proving God's existence as they pursued their work. One can imagine that they reached their conclusions about the design of the universe by a superior power most unwillingly.
The American astronomer George Greenstein confesses this in his book The Symbiotic Universe:
How could this possibly have come to pass (that the laws of physics conform themselves to life)?…As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather Agency- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? (11)
An atheist, Greenstein disregards the plain truth; nevertheless he cannot keep from wondering. Other, less prejudiced scientists on the other hand, readily admit that the universe must have been specially designed for mankind to live in. The American astrophysicist Hugh Ross ends his article "Design and the Anthropic Principle" with these words:
An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed life. (12)
Thus science proves the reality of creation. Certainly there is God and He has created everything around us-the seen and the unseen. He is the sole Creator of the extraordinary and outstanding equilibrium and design of the heavens and Earth.

It has come such a pass that today, materialism has the flavor of a superstitious, unscientific system of belief. The American geneticist Robert Griffiths jokingly remarked "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use." (13)
To sum up: Every physical law and every physical constant in this universe has been specifically designed to enable human beings to exist and live. In his book The Cosmic Blueprint, Davies states this truth in the last paragraph, "The impression of Design is overwhelming." (14)
Doubtlessly, the design of the universe is evidence of God's power to establish. The precise balances and all the human beings and other creatures are the evidence of God's supreme power and act of creation.
             
References:
1. Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, p. 184 
2. Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, London, 1984, p. 184-185 
3. Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, p. 184 
4. Bilim ve Teknik  (Science and Technics ) 201, p. 16 
5. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Press, London: 1988, p. 121-125 
6. Paul Davies. God and the New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 189 
7. Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 12-13 
8. Paul Davies. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, Foreword. 
9. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 122-23 
10. Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9 
11. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, p. 27 
12. Hugh Ross, Design and the Anthropic Principle, Reasons To Believe, CA, 1988 
13. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 123 
14. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint, London: Penguin Books, 1987, p. 203
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.”

KingKongGodzilla

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2020, 03:33:41 PM »
So there is enough evidence for the Big Bang evolution theory? Yes.
Science dogma: everything we see here came from nothing.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 03:43:49 PM by KingKongGodzilla »

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27167
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2020, 03:35:12 PM »
Atheists logic: everything we see here came from nothing.
:singing:
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: 27167
  • Liked:
Re: Sometimes the good guys win...
« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2020, 03:36:32 PM »
It was the Church that branded Galileo as heretical when he said the earth revolved around the sun. 

Science has evolved and is self-correcting.  Religion is dogmatic and presumes to already have the answers. 
Many people have uncritically accepted the idea that there is a longstanding war between science and religion. We find this war advertised in many of the leading atheist tracts such as those by Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Every few months one of the leading newsweeklies does a story on this subject. Little do the peddlers of this paradigm realize that they are victims of nineteenth-century atheist propaganda.
About a hundred years ago, two anti-religious bigots named John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White wrote books promoting the idea of an irreconcilable conflict between science and God. The books were full of facts that have now been totally discredited by scholars. But the myths produced by Draper and Dickson continue to be recycled. They are believed by many who consider themselves educated, and they even find their way into the textbooks. In this article I expose several of these myths, focusing especially on the Galileo case, since Galileo is routinely portrayed as a victim of religious persecution and a martyr to the cause of science.
The Flat Earth Fallacy: According to the atheist narrative, the medieval Christians all believed that the earth was flat until the brilliant scientists showed up in the modern era to prove that it was round. In reality, educated people in the Middle Ages knew that the earth was round. In fact, the ancient Greeks in the fifth century B.C. knew the earth was a globe. They didn’t need modern science to point out the obvious. They could see that when a ship went over the horizon, the hull and the mast disappear at different times. Even more telling, during an eclipse they could see the earth’s shadow on the moon. Look fellas, it’s round!
Huxley’s Mythical Put-Down: We read in various books about the great debate between Darwin’s defender Thomas Henry Huxley and poor Bishop Wilberforce. As the story goes, Wilberforce inquired of Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his father or mother’s side, and Huxley winningly responded that he would rather be descended from an ape than from an ignorant bishop who was misled people about the findings of science. A dramatic denouement, to be sure, but the only problem is that it never happened. There is no record of it in the proceedings of the society that held the debate, and Darwin’s friend Joseph Hooker who informed him about the debate said that Huxley made no rejoinder to Wilberforce’s arguments.
Darwin Against the Christians: As myth would have it, when Darwin’s published his Origin of Species, the scientists lined up on one side and the Christians lined up on the other side. In reality, there were good scientific arguments made both in favor of Darwin and against him. The British naturalist Richard Owen, the Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz, and the renowned physicist Lord Kelvin all had serious reservations about Darwin’s theory. Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb points out that while some Christians found evolution inconsistent with the Bible, many Christians rallied to Darwin’s side. Typical was the influential Catholic journal Dublin Review which extravagantly praised Darwin’s book while registering only minor objections.
The Experiment Galileo Didn’t Do: We read in textbooks about how Galileo went to the Tower of Pisa and dropped light and heavy bodies to the ground. He discovered that they hit the ground at the same time, thus refuting centuries of idle medieval theorizing. Actually Galileo didn’t do any such experiments; one of his students did. The student discovered what we all can discover by doing similar experiments ourselves: the heavy bodies hit the ground first! As historian of science Thomas Kuhn points out, it is only in the absence of air resistance that all bodies hit the ground at the same time.
Galileo Was the First to Prove Heliocentrism: Actually, Copernicus advanced the heliocentric theory that the sun, not the earth, is at the center, and that the earth goes around the sun. He did this more than half a century before Galileo. But Copernicus had no direct evidence, and he admitted that there were serious obstacles from experience that told against his theory. For instance, if the earth is moving rapidly, why don’t objects thrown up into the air land a considerable distance away from their starting point? Galileo defended heliocentrism, but one of his most prominent arguments was wrong. Galileo argued that the earth’s regular motion sloshes around the water in the oceans and explains the tides. In reality, tides have more to do with the moon’s gravitational force acting upon the earth.
The Church Dogmatically Opposed the New Science: In reality, the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. They were open to Galileo’s theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. This was the view of the greatest astronomer of the age, Tyco Brahe. The Church’s view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” Galileo had no such proofs.
Galileo Was A Victim of Torture and Abuse: This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under “house arrest” although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.
The Church Was Wrong To Convict Galileo of Heresy: But Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. He had assured Cardinal Bellarmine that given the sensitivity of the issue, he would not publicly promote heliocentrism. Yet when a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo’s book can plainly see. Even Galileo’s supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point.
What can we conclude from all this? Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but we know that only in retrospect because of evidence that emerged after Galileo’s death. The Church should not have tried him at all, although Galileo’s reckless conduct contributed to his fate. Even so, his fate was not so terrible. Historian Gary Ferngren concludes that “the traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and as a victim of the church’s opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature.” Remember this the next time you hear some half-educated atheist rambling on about “the war between religion and science.”
HT: AOI


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.