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: THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHIGNESS

 (Read 1238 times)

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19144
  • Liked:
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHIGNESS
« on: April 17, 2018, 05:45:27 PM »
In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?

Andre Linde, Professor of Cosmology

 
 
 
A century ago, the creation of the universe was a concept that astronomers as a rule ignored. The reason was the general acceptance of the idea that the universe existed in infinite time. Examining the universe, scientists supposed that it was just a conglomeration of matter and imagined that it had no beginning. There was no moment of "creation"-a moment when the universe and everything in it came into being.
This idea of "eternal existence" fit in well with European notions stemming from the philosophy of materialism. This philosophy, originally advanced in the world of the ancient Greeks, held that matter was the only thing that existed in the universe and the universe existed in infinite time and will exist endlessly. This philosophy survived in different forms during Roman times but in the Late Roman Empire and Middle Ages, materialism went into decline as a result of the influence of the Catholic church and Christian philosophy. It was after Renaissance that materialism began to gain broad acceptance among European scholars and scientists, largely because of their devotion to ancient Greek philosophy.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant was the first person to advance the assertion of "the infinite universe" in the New Age. Scientific discoveries, however, invalidated Kant's assertion.
It was Immanuel Kant who, during the European Enlightenment, reasserted and defended materialism. Kant declared that the universe exists for all time and that every probability, however unlikely, should be regarded as possible. Kant's followers continued to defend his idea of an infinite universe along with materialism. By the beginning of 19th century, the idea that the universe had no beginning-that there was never any moment at which it was created-became widely accepted. It was carried into the 20th century through the works of dialectical materialists such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
This notion of an infinite universe fit in very well with atheism. It is not hard to see why. To hold that the universe had a beginning could imply that it was created and that, of course requires a creator-that is, God. It was much more convenient and safer to circumvent the issue by putting forward the idea that "the universe exists for eternity", even though there was not the slightest scientific basis for making such a claim. Georges Politzer, who espoused and defended this idea in his books published in the early 20th century, was an ardent champion of both Marxism and materialism.
 Putting his trust in the validity of the "infinite universe" model, Politzer opposed the idea of creation in his book Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie when he wrote:

Quote
The universe was not a created object, if it were, then it would have to be created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science can not accede. 3
Politzer supposed that science was on his side in his defense of the idea of an infinite universe. In fact, science was to prove that the universe indeed had a beginning. And just as Politzer himself declared, if there is creation then there must also be a creator.
 
The Expansion of Universe and the Discovery of the Big Bang
The 1920s were important years in the development of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing that the structure of the universe was not static and that even a tiny impulse might be sufficient to cause the whole structure to expand or contract according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. George Lemaitre was the first to recognize what Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations, the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered it. He also stated that the rate of radiation could be used as a measure of the aftermath of that "something".
The theoretical musings of these two scientists did not attract much attention and probably would have been ignored except for new observational evidence that rocked the scientific world in 1929. That year the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson observatory, made one of the most important discoveries in the history of astronomy. Observing a number of stars through his huge telescope, he discovered that their light was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum and, crucially, that this shift was directly related to the distance of the stars from Earth. This discovery shook the very basis of the universe model held until then.
According to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of light beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. (Just like the fading of a train's whistle as it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation showed that according to this law, the heavenly bodies were moving away from us. Before long, Hubble made another important discovery; The stars weren't just racing away from Earth; they were racing away from each other as well. The only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly "expands".
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. Eventually he found evidence of the "the Big Bang", a cataclysmic event whose discovery forced scientists to abandon the notion of an infinite and eternal universe.
Hubble had found observational evidence for something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized" a short while ago and one of the greatest minds of our age had recognized almost fifteen years earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded that the universe could not be static because of calculations based on his recently-discovered theory of relativity (thus anticipating the conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre). Shocked by his findings, Einstein added a "cosmological constant" to his equations in order to "make the answer come out right" because astronomers assured him that the universe was static and there was no other way to make his equations match such a model. Years later, Einstein was to admit that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career.
Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding led to the emergence of another model that needed no fiddling around with to make the equations work right. If the universe was getting bigger as time advanced, going back in time meant that it was getting smaller; and if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge at a single point. The conclusion to be derived from this model was that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational evidence.
There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity".
 
The "Steady-state" Hypothesis
 

 The Big Bang theory quickly gained wide acceptance in the scientific world due to the clear-cut evidence for it. Nevertheless astronomers who favored materialism and adhered to the idea of an infinite universe that materialism seemingly demanded held out against the Big Bang in their struggle to uphold a fundamental tenet of their ideology. The reason was made clear by the English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who said "Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me".4

Another astronomer who opposed the Big Bang theory was Fred Hoyle. Around the middle of the 20th century he came up with a new model, which he called "steady-state", that was an extension of the 19th century's idea of an infinite universe. Accepting the incontrovertible evidence that the universe was expanding, he proposed that the universe was infinite in both dimension and time. According to this model, as the universe expanded new matter was continuously coming into existence by itself in just the right amount to keep the universe in a "steady state". With the sole visible aim of supporting the dogma of "matter existed in infinite time", which is the basis of the materialist philosophy, this theory was totally at variance with the "Big Bang theory", which defends that the universe had a beginning. Supporters of Hoyle's steady state theory remained adamantly opposed to the Big Bang for years. Science, however, was working against them.
 
The Triumph of the Big Bang
Sir Arthur Eddington's statement that "the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of nature was repugnant to him" was an admission of the discomfort that the Big Bang caused for materialists.
In 1948, George Gamov carried George Lemaitre's calculations several steps further and came up with a new idea concerning the Big Bang. If the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion, there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over from that explosion. This radiation should be detectable and, furthermore, it should be uniform throughout the universe.
Within two decades, observational proof of Gamov's conjecture was forthcoming. In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form of radiation hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background radiation", it was unlike anything coming from anywhere else in the universe for it was extraordinarily uniform. It was neither localized nor did it have a definite source; instead, it was distributed equally everywhere. It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang, still reverberating since the first moments of that great explosion. Gamov had been spot-on for the frequency of the radiation was nearly the same value that scientists had predicted it would be. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their discovery.
In 1989, George Smoot and his NASA team sent a satellite into space. Called the "Cosmic Background Emission Explorer" (COBE), it took only eight minutes for the sensitive instruments on board the satellite to detect and confirm the levels of radiation reported by Penzias and Wilson. These results conclusively demonstrated the existence of the hot, dense form remaining from the explosion out of which the universe came into being. Most scientists acknowledged that COBE had successfully captured the remnants of the Big Bang.
The cosmic background radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson is regarded as incontrovertible evidence of the Big Bang by the scientific world.
More evidence for the Big Bang was forthcoming. One piece had to do with the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe. Observations indicated that the mix of these two elements in the universe was in accord with theoretical calculations of what should have been remained after the Big Bang. That drove another stake into the heart of the steady state theory because if the universe had existed for eternity and never had a beginning, all of its hydrogen should have been burned into helium.
Confronted by such evidence, the Big Bang gained the near-complete approval of the scientific world. In an article in its October 1994 issue, Scientific American noted that the Big Bang model was the only one that could account for the constant expansion of the universe and for other observational results.
Defending the steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory was revealed:
 There was at that time a somewhat acrimonious debate between some of the proponents of the steady state theory and observers who were testing it and, I think, hoping to disprove it. I played a very minor part at that time because I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile observational evidence became to come in, Fred Hoyle took a leading part in trying to counter this evidence, and I played a small part at the side, also making suggestions as to how the hostile evidence could be answered. But as that evidence piled up, it became more and more evident that the game was up, and that one had to abandon the steady state theory.

 
Who Created the Universe From Nothing?
With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?
 Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 6
 Many scientists who do not force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical dimensions as:

By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.7
 
Objections to Creation and Why They are Flawed

 It is patently obvious that the Big Bang means the creation of the universe out of nothing and this is surely evidence of willful creation. Regarding this fact, some materialist astronomers and physicists have tried to advance alternative explanations to oppose this reality. Mention has already been made of the steady state theory and it was pointed out it was clung to, by those who were uncomfortable with the notion of "creation from nothingness", despite all the evidence to the contrary in an attempt to shore up their philosophy.

There are also a number of models that have been advanced by materialists who accept the Big Bang theory but try to exorcise it of the notion of creation. One of these is the "oscillating" universe model; another is the "quantum model of universe". Let us examine these theories and see why they are invalid.
The oscillating universe model was advanced by the astronomers who disliked the idea the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. In this model, it is claimed that the present expansion of the universe will eventually be reversed at some point and begin to contract. This contraction will cause everything to collapse into a single point that will then explode again, initiating a new round of expansion. This process, they say, is repeated infinitely in time. This model also holds that the universe has experienced this transformation an infinite number of times already and that it will continue to do so forever. In other words, the universe exists for eternity but it expands and collapses at different intervals with a huge explosion punctuating each cycle. The universe we live in is just one of those infinite universes going through the same cycle.
This is nothing but a feeble attempt to accommodate the fact of the Big Bang to notions about an infinite universe. The proposed scenario is unsupported by the results of scientific research over the last 15-20 years, which show that it is impossible for such an "oscillating" universe idea to come into being. Furthermore the laws of physics offer no reason why a contracting universe should explode again after collapsing into a single point: it ought to stay just as it is. Nor do they offer a reason why an expanding universe should ever begin to contract in the first place.8
Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed. Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing. Even if "open and close" universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be created from "nothing".9
Put briefly, the "oscillating" universe model is a hopeless fantasy whose physical reality is impossible.
The "quantum model of universe" is another attempt to purge the Big Bang of its creationist implications. Supporters of this model base it on the observations of quantum (subatomic) physics. In quantum physics, it is to be observed that subatomic particles appear and disappear spontaneously in a vacuum. Interpreting this observation as "matter can originate at quantum level, this is a property pertaining to matter", some physicists try to explain the origination of matter from non-existence during the creation of the universe as a "property pertaining to matter" and present it as a part of laws of nature. In this model, our universe is interpreted as a subatomic particle in a bigger one.
However this syllogism is definitely out of question and in any case cannot explain how the universe came into being. William Lane Craig, the author of The Big Bang: Theism and Atheism explains why:
A quantum mechanical vacuum spawning material particles is far from the ordinary idea of a "vacuum" (meaning nothing). Rather, a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of nothing.10
So in quantum physics, matter "does not exist when it was not before". What happens is that ambient energy suddenly becomes matter and just as suddenly disappears becoming energy again. In short, there is no condition of "existence from nothingness" as is claimed.
 In physics, no less than in other branches of the sciences, there are atheist scientists who do not hesitate to disguise the truth by overlooking critical points and details in their attempt to support the materialist view and achieve their ends. For them, it is much more important to defend materialism and atheism than to reveal scientific facts and realities.

In the face of the reality mentioned above, most scientists dismiss the quantum universe model. C. J. Isham explains that "this model is not accepted widely because of the inherent difficulties that it poses."11 Even some of the originators of this idea, such as Brout and Spindel, have abandoned it.12
Stephen Hawking also tries to advance different explanations for the Big Bang other than Creation just as other Materialist scientists do by relying upon contradictions and false concepts.
A recent and much-publicized version of the quantum universe model was advanced by the physicist Stephen Hawking. In his book A Brief History of Time, Hawking states that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily mean existence from nothingness. Instead of "no time" before the Big Bang, Hawking proposed the concept of "imaginary time". According to Hawking, there was only a 10-43 second "imaginary" time interval before the Big Bang took place and "real" time was formed after that. Hawking's hope was just to ignore the reality of "timelessness" before the Big Bang by means of this "imaginary" time.
As a concept, "imaginary time" is tantamount to zero or non-existence-like the imaginary number of people in a room or the imaginary number of cars on a road. Here Hawking is just playing with words. He claims that equations are right when they are related to an imaginary time but in fact this has no meaning. The mathematician Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility of faking imaginary things as real in math as:
In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its physical correlate.13
To put it briefly, a mathematically imaginary or theoretical solution need not have a true or a real consequence. Using a property exclusive to mathematics, Hawking produces hypotheses that are unrelated to reality. But what reason could he have for doing this? It's easy to find the answer to that question in his own words. Hawking admits that he prefers alternative universe models to the Big Bang because the latter "hints at divine creation", which such models are designed to oppose.14
 What all this shows is that alternative models to the Big Bang such as steady-state, the open and close universe model, and quantum universe models in fact spring from the philosophical prejudices of materialists. Scientific discoveries have demonstrated the reality of the Big Bang and can even explain "existence from nothingness". And this is very strong evidence that the universe is created by God, a point that materialists utterly reject

An example of this opposition to the Big Bang is to be found in an essay by John Maddox, the editor of Nature (a materialist magazine), that appeared in 1989. In "Down with the Big Bang", Maddox declares the Big Bang to be philosophically unacceptable because it helps theologists by providing them with strong support for their ideas. The author also predicted that the Big Bang would be disproved and that support for it would disappear within a decade.15 Maddox can only have been even more discomforted by the subsequent discoveries during the next ten years that have provided further evidence of the existence of the Big Bang.
 
 Some materialists do act with more common sense on this subject. The British Materialist H. P. Lipson accepts the truth of creation, albeit "unpleasantly", when he says:

Quote
If living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?…I think, however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.16
In conclusion, the truth disclosed by science is this: Matter and time have been brought into being by an independent possessor of immense power, by a Creator. God, the Possessor of almighty power, knowledge and intelligence, has created the universe we live in.
                             
References:
 
 2. Andrei Linde, "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe", Scientific American, vol. 271, 1994, p. 48 
 3. George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie, Editions Sociales, Paris 1954 ,p. 84 
 4. S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1980, p. 54 
 5. Stephen Hawking, Evreni Kucaklayan Karinca, Alkim Publishing, 1993, p. 62-63 
 6. Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse. Cosmos, Bios, Theos. La Salle IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241 
 7. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How Greatest Scientific Discoveries of The Century Reveal God, Colorado: NavPress,  revised edition, 1995, p. 76 
 8. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19 
 9. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19 
 10. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 20 
 11. Christopher Isham, "Space, Time and Quantum Cosmology", paper presented at the conference "God, Time and Modern Physics", March 1990, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 27 
 12. R. Brout, Ph. Spindel, "Black Holes Dispute", Nature, vol 337, 1989, p. 216 
 13. Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, London: Martin Brian & O'Keefe, 1972, p. 31-32 
 14. StephenHawking, A Brief History of Time, New York: Bantam Books, 1988, p. 46 
 15. John Maddox, "Down with the Big Bang", Nature, vol. 340, 1989, p. 378 
 16. H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138  
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: 19144
  • Liked:
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: 19144
  • Liked:
Coordinated stasis - new theory to account for lack of evolution
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2018, 05:47:43 PM »
A new theory of evolution (or lack thereof) has developed from recent studies of the fossil record. Previous studies have indicated species arose and remained unchanged for millions of years before becoming extinct or followed by the appearance of new species. This observation led to the theory of punctuated equilibrium. A recent report furthers this idea with the concept of "coordinated stasis," where entire communities of species remain unchanged for millions of years. These periods can be followed by periods when "upwards of 60% of species seem to be replaced over a period of a few hundred thousand years." (Richard A. Kerr. 1997. Does Evolutionary History Take Million-Year Breaks? Science 278: 576)
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: 19144
  • Liked:
OBJECTIONS TO CREATION AND WHY THEY ARE FLAWED
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2018, 05:48:55 PM »
The oscillating universe model was advanced by the astronomers who disliked the idea the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. In this model, it is claimed that the present expansion of the universe will eventually be reversed at some point and begin to contract. This contraction will cause everything to collapse into a single point that will then explode again, initiating a new round of expansion. This process, they say, is repeated infinitely in time. This model also holds that the universe has experienced this transformation an infinite number of times already and that it will continue to do so forever. In other words, the universe exists for eternity but it expands and collapses at different intervals with a huge explosion punctuating each cycle. The universe we live in is just one of those infinite universes going through the same cycle.
This is nothing but a feeble attempt to accommodate the fact of the Big Bang to notions about an infinite universe. The proposed scenario is unsupported by the results of scientific research over the last 15-20 years, which show that it is impossible for such an "oscillating" universe idea to come into being. Furthermore the laws of physics offer no reason why a contracting universe should explode again after collapsing into a single point: it ought to stay just as it is. Nor do they offer a reason why an expanding universe should ever begin to contract in the first place. 1
Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed. Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing. Even if "open and close" universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be created from "nothing". 2
Put briefly, the "oscillating" universe model is a hopeless fantasy whose physical reality is impossible.
The "quantum model of universe" is another attempt to purge the Big Bang of its creationist implications. Supporters of this model base it on the observations of quantum (subatomic) physics. In quantum physics, it is to be observed that subatomic particles appear and disappear spontaneously in a vacuum. Interpreting this observation as "matter can originate at quantum level, this is a property pertaining to matter", some physicists try to explain the origination of matter from non-existence during the creation of the universe as a "property pertaining to matter" and present it as a part of laws of nature. In this model, our universe is interpreted as a subatomic particle in a bigger one.
However this syllogism is definitely out of question and in any case cannot explain how the universe came into being. Lane Craig, the author of The Big Bang: Theism and Atheism explains why:
A quantum mechanical vacuum spawning material particles is far from the ordinary idea of a "vacuum" (meaning nothing). Rather, a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of nothing. 3
So in quantum physics, matter "does not exist when it was not before". What happens is that ambient energy suddenly becomes matter and just as suddenly disappears becoming energy again. In short, there is no condition of "existence from nothingness" as is claimed.
In physics, no less than in other branches of the sciences, there are atheist scientists who do not hesitate to disguise the truth by overlooking critical points and details in their attempt to support the materialist view and achieve their ends. For them, it is much more important to defend materialism and atheism than to reveal scientific facts and realities.
In the face of the reality mentioned above, most scientists dismiss the quantum universe model. C. J. Isham explains that "this model is not accepted widely because of the inherent difficulties that it poses." 4 Even some of the originators of this idea, such as Brout and Spindel, have abandoned it. 5
A recent and much-publicized version of the quantum universe model was advanced by the physicist Stephen Hawking. In his book A Brief History of Time, Hawking states that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily mean existence from nothingness. Instead of "no time" before the Big Bang, Hawking proposed the concept of "imaginary time". According to Hawking, there was only a 10 -43 second "imaginary" time interval before the Big Bang took place and "real" time was formed after that. Hawking's hope was just to ignore the reality of "timelessness" before the Big Bang by means of this "imaginary" time.
As a concept, "imaginary time" is tantamount to zero or non-existence-like the imaginary number of people in a room or the imaginary number of cars on a road. Here Hawking is just playing with words. He claims that equations are right when they are related to an imaginary time but in fact this has no meaning. The mathematician Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility of faking imaginary things as real in math as:
In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its physical correlate. 6
To put it briefly, a mathematically imaginary or theoretical solution need not have a true or a real consequence. Using a property exclusive to mathematics, Hawking produces hypotheses that are unrelated to reality. But what reason could he have for doing this? It's easy to find the answer to that question in his own words. Hawking admits that he prefers alternative universe models to the Big Bang because the latter "hints at divine creation", which such models are designed to oppose. 7
What all this shows is that alternative models to the Big Bang such as steady-state, the open and close universe model, and quantum universe models in fact spring from the philosophical prejudices of materialists. Scientific discoveries have demonstrated the reality of the Big Bang and can even explain "existence from nothingness". And this is very strong evidence that the universe is created by God, a point that materialists utterly reject.
An example of this opposition to the Big Bang is to be found in an essay by John Maddox, the editor of Nature (a materialist magazine), that appeared in 1989. In "Down with the Big Bang", Maddox declares the Big Bang to be philosophically unacceptable because it helps theologists by providing them with strong support for their ideas. The author also predicted that the Big Bang would be disproved and that support for it would disappear within a decade. 8 Maddox can only have been even more discomforted by the subsequent discoveries during the next ten years that have provided further evidence of the existence of the Big Bang.
Some materialists do act with more common sense on this subject. The British Materialist H. P. Lipson accepts the truth of creation, albeit "unpleasantly", when he says:
If living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?…I think, however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. 9
In conclusion, the truth disclosed by science is this: Matter and time have been brought into being by an independent possessor of immense power, by a Creator. God, the Possessor of almighty power, knowledge and intelligence, has created the universe we live in.
References:
       
1. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19  
 2. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19  
 3. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 20  
 4. Christopher Isham, "Space, Time and Quantum Cosmology", paper presented at the conference "God, Time and Modern Physics", March 1990, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 27  
 5. R. Brout, Ph. Spindel, "Black Holes Dispute", Nature, vol 337, 1989, p. 216  
 6. Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, London: Martin Brian & O'Keefe, 1972, p. 31-32  
 7. StephenHawking, A Brief History of Time, New York: Bantam Books, 1988, p. 46  
 8. John Maddox, "Down with the Big Bang", Nature, vol. 340, 1989, p. 378  
 9. H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138    
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 05:52:04 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.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19144
  • Liked:
No link between climate and evolution in AfricaS
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2018, 06:10:52 PM »
Paleontology tells us that there was a major change in the climate of Africa between 2.8 and 2.5 million years ago. Evolutionists have suggested that this change promoted early human evolution and a turnover of mammalian species at this time. However, a thorough study of mammalian fossils (over 10,000 specimens) from the period of 3.0 to 1.8 million years ago reveals that there was "no distinct turnover pulse between 2.8 and 2.5 Ma." Instead, the most significant period of change in mammalian species occurred between 2.5 and 1.8 million years ago. (Behrensmeyer, A.K., N.E. Todd, R. Potts, and G.E. McBrinn. 1997. Late Pliocene faunal turnover in the Turkana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia. Science 278: 1589)
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.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHIGNESS
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2018, 07:20:50 PM »
Oldest Homo Fossil Implies Humans Created by Climate Change


Close up view of the mandible just steps from where it was sighted by Chalachew Seyoum, an ASU graduate student from Ethiopia. (Source: Kay Reed)On an East African hill somewhere in “Afar,” a stone’s throw from “Awash,” two sections of a large detached jawbone grinned brokenly at Ethiopian Arizona State University (ASU) graduate student Chalachew Seyoum. The pieces were just lying there, so the student picked them up and brought them together. They fit “perfectly,” he said.

They in turn would serve to bring together the primitive Australopithecus Aferensis lineage of the famous Lucy fossil, and ours. For that refashioned jawbone was the oldest fossil of the homo genus ever found, ASU and University of Nevada (UN) scientists—including Seyoum—announced at a global presser for twoScience papers describing the find.
The jawbone’s age was radiometrically set at 2.8 million years. This was 400,000 years older than the human genus was supposed to be. But the smallish teeth and parabolic jaw were unmistakably Homo.Since Lucy’s kind died out 2.9 million years ago, this meant our genus popped up in prehistory earlier and more suddenly than known, in only 100,000 years. It all fit beautifully with the climate change known to have occurred at that time—which, like a giant hand it now appeared, swept small-brained, unimaginative eaters like Lucy off newly vast and arid savannas, and swept on to them more large-brained, omnivorous types:  us.
Backing this up: the other Science paper, which reveals that one-third of mammals at that time were new to earth. So some 200,000 years before a known climate change, a swath of Ethiopia was made up of a rich mosaic of trees and grasslands, and populated by monkeys and other tree-friendly animals like giraffes. Within a short time—as a result of dizzying 20,000-year-cycles of wet-dry climate change— animals more suitable for a world that had been flattened, dried out, and opened up, were now galloping about: fast-moving grazers like gazelles, wild pigs, zebras, and us.
Amazing discovery
“This is an amazing discovery, one that is going to set the tone for sorting out our past environmental changes,” Columbia University paleo-climatologist Peter deMenocal told Bioscience Technology.  He was not involved in the Science studies. “We’ve known for a long time that 2.8 million years was a critical time in terms of changes in the environment. Several of us had hypothesized that maybe some of the important changes we saw in human ancestors, and other mammals at this time, may have been the result of environment changes. But the fossil record had a gap.”

Close up images of LD 350-1 mandible. (Source: William Kimbel)Continued deMenocal: “That is one reason we are so excited. These studies make it really clear that right around 2.8 million years ago was a time when homo first appeared. Our biggest challenge was a huge gap that occurred in Ethiopia right about 2.5 to 3 million years ago. The geologic record was missing; a key part of the geologic record of human evolution didn’t exist. That is what is so transformative about these studies. A really big juicy puzzle piece was missing. These two papers put it back.”

The teeth were key to the puzzle, as their small size and shape indicated a broader diet than the coarse vegetable diet of earlier breeds like the so-called “Nutcracker Man.” “The homo diet was more varied,” deManocal said. Aiding this was, no doubt, the stone tools appearing at the time.
“These two studies focus all this evolutionary action on a narrow window 2.8 million years ago, that magic time in the climate,” deManocal concluded to Bioscience Technology. Members of Homo flourished because they could “develop a flexible diet from an increasingly flexible landscape…In 100,000 years or less, a wink of geologic time, two new hominin lineages appeared, one the Robust Australopithecines, and the other us. It is a major explosive branching point, a time of intense speciation, species turnover, and behavioral adaptations including the origins of stone tools. We expected this, and now these papers show this major climate change was indeed a time of major evolutionary change.”
Exemplary integrative approach
Jonathan Wynn, a University of South Florida geologist who is also an (uninvolved) expert on this period, told Bioscience Technology the new work “is an exemplary integrative approach to the paleobiological study of early human evolution.” The approach of the teams, whose lead authors were UN’s Brian Villmoare and Penn State University’s Erin DiMaggio, “is truly multidisciplinary, integrating research on the anatomical details of these crucial fossils with their geological, paleoecological, and chronological context.
"The meagerness of the fossil record of vertebrates in eastern Africa deriving from rocks dating to between three and two million years ago has long been a `thorn in the side’ of those working to reconstruct the big picture of early hominin evolution.  Crucially, we have long known that the transition from the more chimpanzee-like Australopithecus to our own genus Homo is likely to have occurred somewhere in this fossil gap.   This new work has begun to fill this gap, not only with well-dated hominin fossils, but with data on their relationship to the ancient environment in which our new genus emerged.”
Wynn thinks the Homo creatures represented by the jawbone “perhaps” did not appear more rapidly than thought, but “certainly sooner than had been
Detailed map of where the Ledi-Geraru site is located, in reference to other important fossil sites in Ethiopia. (Source: Erin Dimaggio)previously interpreted from the sparse fossil record of this period.  The new fossils date to 2.8 to 2.75 million years ago, while previous evidence for Homo was confined to about 2.4 to 2.3 million years ago; thus the new fossils push back the age of earliest Homo by more than 15 percent of the previously known record.”

Wynn said the sparse sedimentary record of three to two million years ago “left us previously with a critical gap in the fossil record of early hominins.  The new fossils from remote parts of the Awash Valley, Ethiopia begin to fill that gap with crucial fossil material.”
Importantly, he said, “the geological and vertebrate paleontological work represented in these papers gives us a much more sharply focused picture of the environment in which Homo emerged from earlier australopithecines.  The brief snapshots provided by the sediments exposed here, combined with work in surrounding areas, gives us a 'big picture' view of a lake basin in which the mesic environments surrounding Lake Hadar were beginning to dwindle, compared to previous periods in which Australopithecus (Lucy kin) thrived for almost a million years. The new evidence shows that the largely wooded lakeside environments were replaced by more open environments likely covered with low shrubs and grasses."
Returning to Afar
There is much more to be done, Wynn said. Researchers need to establish a causal link between this regional environmental trend, “and the biological changes represented by the Australopithecus to Homotransition.  And we will need to learn more about the fundamental causes of regional environmental change in this sedimentary basin. Was it driven by global climate change known during this period, or regional shifts in the motions of tectonic plates that shifted the positions of ancient lake basins and river systems?”
It is likely, he said, that researchers will be returning to Afar for answers to many new questions “posed by these exciting new discoveries.”
Establish your company as a technology leader. For 50 years, the R&D 100 Awards, widely recognized as the “Oscars of Invention,” have showcased products of technological significance. Learn more.
https://www.biosciencetechnology.com/article/2015/03/oldest-homo-fossil-implies-humans-created-climate-change
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 07:24:14 PM by P1tchBlack »

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19144
  • Liked:
Pelvic problems for mammals
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2018, 05:35:38 PM »
A recent study examined the epipubis or so-called 'marsupial bone,' which has been thought to have been associated with the suckling of young in a marsupial pouch. It was assumed that the epipubis was required to support lactating young for the lengthy period after birth in which considerable growth took place. However, in the platypus (monotreme), there is not pouch. In addition, not all marsupial species have a pouch in females, and it is not found in males and yet all these groups have an epipubis. Therefore, the bone and the pouch do not appear to be functionally associated in any simple way. According to the authors of the study, "It is difficult to visualize how, early in the evolution of placental mammals, diverse groups could have started from the marsupial pattern and arrived independently at the quite different plan found throughout present placentals... The challenge highlighted by these new fossil findings is that we do not know what any possessor of the epipubis does with it, let alone what all possessors do with it." (Presley, R. 1997. Evolutionary biology: Pelvic problems for mammals. Nature 389: 440-441.)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 06:38:33 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.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Pelvic problems for mammals
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2018, 06:26:02 PM »
A recent study examined the epipubis or so-called 'marsupial bone,' which has been thought to have been associated with the suckling of young in a marsupial pouch. It was assumed that the epipubis was required to support lactating young for the lengthy period after birth in which considerable growth took place. However, in the platypus (monotreme), there is not pouch. In addition, not all marsupial species have a pouch in females, and it is not found in males and yet all these groups have an epipubis. Therefore, the bone and the pouch do not appear to be functionally associated in any simple way. According to the authors of the study, "It is difficult to visualize how, early in the evolution of placental mammals, diverse groups could have started from the marsupial pattern and arrived independently at the quite different plan found throughout present placentals... The challenge highlighted by these new fossil findings is that we do not know what any possessor of the epipubis does with it, let alone what all possessors do with it." (Presley, R. 1997. Evolutionary biology: Pelvic problems for mammals. Nature 389: 440-441.)
What is your point? I'm asking because, to me, it looks like you're playing the role of OJ Simpson's lawyer. There's mountains of evidence working against you and all you want to do is create a sliver of Doubt hoping that the moronic jurors will take your side.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 06:51:52 PM by P1tchBlack »

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19144
  • Liked:
Re: Pelvic problems for mammals
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2018, 07:27:55 PM »
I am just a cyber-stalking troll who wants to try and bully someone  and can't 
As in evidence in so many places you have eyes and do not see, ears and do not hear and a brain and do not think 

Thanks for proving so many of my points 

Look up in the sky. Its that damned bird point, flying over your head, yet again . 


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.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHIGNESS
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2018, 10:54:04 PM »
I am just a cyber-stalking troll who wants to try and bully someone  and can't

I don't stalk, bully, like or dislike you.  I nothing you.

In fact, there are a small number of things we agree on.  Primarily the things where you support freedom and individual liberty....so, anything that doesn't link back to religion.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 12:19:48 AM by P1tchBlack »

highVOLtage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3405
  • Liked:
Re: THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHIGNESS
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2018, 11:56:47 PM »
"Oldest Homo Fossil Implies Humans Created by Climate Change"

Wait, climate change created man? I thought it was the other way around.  It's like a secular "god didn't create man, man created god" conundrum..

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHIGNESS
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2018, 12:22:13 AM »
"Oldest Homo Fossil Implies Humans Created by Climate Change"

Wait, climate change created man? I thought it was the other way around.  It's like a secular "god didn't create man, man created god" conundrum..
 "god didn't create man, man created god"

Man has created many gods...over 1,000 as a matter of fact...:67:

highVOLtage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 3405
  • Liked:
Re: THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHIGNESS
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2018, 11:07:39 AM »
"god didn't create man, man created god"

Man has created many gods...over 1,000 as a matter of fact...:67:

Oh, much more than that. Man creates false gods and worships idols on a daily basis.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 11:09:42 AM by highVOLtage »

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19144
  • Liked:
FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2018, 07:08:59 PM »
Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
PARAMETER
Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons
1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity
1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe
1:1055
Mass of Universe (1)
1:1059
Cosmological Constant
1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values,
 that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter,
 or be unsuitable for any form of life.
Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant. This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe. (2) However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe. (3)

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos , which is reproduced here:
One part in 10 37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10 37 . (p. 115)
  • 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
  • 12 C to 16 O 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 4 He
    if larger : universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
     if smaller
    : same as above
  • Decay rate of 8 Be
    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
  • Big bang ripples
    if smaller : galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger : galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
  • Size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller : certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
     if larger
    : same result
  • Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller : oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger : oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
  • Cosmological constant
    if larger : universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

    References
    (1) For further information, visit the website of Dr. Edward Wright, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy at UCLA
    (2) The amount of light and dark matter is only 30% of that necessary for a "flat" universe (one which contains the critical mass - the amount necessary to stop the expansion of the universe).
    (3) Sincell, M. 1999. Firming Up the Case for a Flat Cosmos. Science 285: 1831.
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.”

 

Associate Links/Search