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 1524 times)

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22971
  • Liked:
THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHIGNESS
« on: August 22, 2017, 08:07:50 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.
Immanuel Kant
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: <blockquote>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</blockquote>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
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
Arthur Eddington
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.
Penzias and Wilson
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.
big bang
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
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
space stars galaxy
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:<blockquote>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</blockquote>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: 22971
  • Liked:
THE EQUILIBRIUM IN THE EXPLOSION
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2017, 07:36:09 PM »

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.
Big Bang
Paul dAVİES
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 [/t][/t]
[/t]
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
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
[/td][/tr][/table]
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: 22971
  • Liked:
THE ORDER IN THE SKIES
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2017, 01:42:46 PM »
… 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: 22971
  • Liked:
DISTANCES BETWEEN COSMIC OBJECTS
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2017, 12:13:15 PM »
As we know, our Planet Earth is part of a solar system of nine planets, the Earth being the third planet                       
orbiting our medium sized star.                         
First, let's understand the scale of this system. The Sun's diameter is 103 times the Earth's. To enable a comparison, image the Earth (whose true diameter is 12,200 kilometers, or 7,500 miles) as the size of a marble. In comparison, our Sun would be a sphere twice the size of a football. But what is really interesting is the distance between the two. On this scale, it would be 280 meters (920 feet). Planets at the outer reaches of the system would be many kilometers away from the sphere representing the Sun.
Yet the solar system's huge size is actually modest when placed in context with the rest of our Milky Way Galaxy. It contains an estimated 250 billion stars (or suns), the nearest of which is Alpha Centauri. If Earth and Sun are 280 meters (920 feet) apart, as in the above example, then on the same scale, Alpha Centauri would be a whopping 78,000 kilometers (48,500 miles) away.
If we consider the Earth as the size of a marble, and the distance between it and the Sun as 280 meters (920 feet), then the star Alpha Centauri should be placed 78,000 kilometers (48,500 miles) away! [/t][/t]
[/t]Let's shrink this scale down until the Earth becomes a dust particle barely visible to the naked eye. The Sun would then be the size of a walnut, three meters away from the Earth. On this new scale, Alpha Centauri would be 640 kilometers (400 miles) away. Yet the Milky Way Galaxy consists of 250 billion stars with even more phenomenal distances in between them. Our solar system is a mere speck in this spiral galaxy.
The Milky Way itself covers a relatively minute area within the universe, when we consider there are approximately 300 billion other such galaxies besides it, and that the distances between them are millions of times greater than between our Sun and Alpha Centauri.
The diffusion of heavenly objects throughout the universe and the spaces between them are necessary conditions for life on Earth. The distances between stars are arranged by cosmic forces in such a way as to make possible life on Earth. These distances have a direct effect on planets' orbits and even their very existence. Were they any closer, gravitational attraction between stars would destabilize the planets' orbits, causing extreme fluctuation in temperatures. Had they been any farther, the distribution of heavier elements, shooting into space from supernovas, would have never reached the density required to form planets like our solid Earth.
The existing distances between stars are just right to permit the existence of solar systems like ours.
Michael Denton, a renowned Professor of Biochemistry, writes in his book Nature's Destiny :                       
The distances between supernovae and indeed between all stars is critical for other reasons. The distance between stars in our galaxy is about 30 million miles. If this distance 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. (1)
In The Symbiotic Universe, astronomer George Greenstein writes about these mind-boggling distances:
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. (2)
In the vast depths of space, our Earth occupies no more room than a grain of sand on a beach. The universe is too large for human minds to comprehend. Bodies in space have been created at the ideal distances from one another. In our galaxy, the slightest increase or reduction in the average distances between heavenly bodies would mean that no planet would exist that is suitable for life.
[/t][/t]
[/t]The universe's vast empty spaces, Greenstein explains, determine the value of physical variables that make human life on Earth possible and also prevent the Earth from colliding with other cosmic objects traveling through the universe.
In short, the distribution of stars in the universe is exactly as they must be for human existence on Earth. The vast empty spaces are not coincidental-they were created.
References:                          
(1) Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 11.
  ( 2) George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, New York: William Morrow, 1998, p. 21, emphasis added.
[/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table]
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: 22971
  • Liked:
OBJECTIONS TO CREATION AND WHY THEY ARE FLAWED
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2017, 04:45:29 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     
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: 22971
  • Liked:
The BIG BANG
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2017, 08:21:40 PM »
In the two widest-ranging exercises on mapping the galaxies carried out to date, scientists have made findings that offer serious support for the Big Bang theory. The results of the research were presented at the winter conference of the American Astronomical Society.
The wide extent of the distribution of galaxies is evaluated by astrophysicists as one of the most important legacies from the first phases of the universe to have come down to the present day. It is therefore possible to refer to the information on the distribution and location of the galaxies as "a window opening onto the history of the universe."
In their research that lasted several years, two independent teams, composed of British, Australian and American scientists, produced a three-dimensional map of some 266,000 galaxies. The scientists compared the data they collected on the distribution of the galaxies with the data for the Cosmic Background Radiation emitted everywhere in the universe, and made important discoveries regarding the origin of galaxies. Researchers analysing the data concluded that the galaxies formed where matter that formed 350,000 years after the Big Bang relatively clustered together, and then assumed their shape under the influence of the force of gravity.



 The findings in question confirmed the Big Bang theory, which states that the universe began from the explosion of a single point of zero volume and infinite density some 14 billion years ago. This theory has constantly been confirmed by tests consisting of decades of astronomical observations, and stands unrivalled on the most solid of foundations. The Big Bang is accepted by the great majority of present-day astrophysicists, and constitutes scientific verification of the fact that God created the universe from nothing.
According to the Big Bang theory, everything began from the explosion of a point of infinite density and zero volume. As time passed, space expanded and the gaps between heavenly bodies grew.
In its ten-year-long research, the Anglo-Australian Observatory in the Australian state of New South Wales determined the positions in space of 221,000 galaxies by means of a three-dimensional mapping technique. The survey, which was performed with a 3.9 metre diameter telescope at the observation post, was almost ten times larger than any previous such study (1) . Under the leadership of Dr. Matthew Colless, director of the observatory, the team of scientists first determined the position of galaxies relative to one another and the distances between them. Then they modelled the distribution of the galaxies and studied the minute variations in that model in great detail. The scientists offered their research for publication in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
In a similar study carried out by the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico , USA , the positions of some 46,000 galaxies in another region of space were similarly mapped and their distribution was investigated. The study, involving the use of a 2.5 metre diameter Sloan telescope, was carried out under the leadership of Daniel Eisenstein of the University of Arizona , and is to be published in the Astrophysical Journal (2) .
The results obtained by the two groups were announced during the winter meeting of the American Astronomical Society in San Diego , California , USA on 11 January, 2005.

An Important Confirmation
The data obtained as the result of long and careful work confirmed estimates made decades ago in the field of astronomy regarding the origin of the galaxies. In the 1960s, theoreticians estimated that galaxies may have seeded in regions where matter massed in a slightly higher concentration shortly after the Big Bang. If that estimate is correct, then the seeds of the galaxies should be capable of being observed in the form of tiny fluctuations in heat levels in the remains of radiation left over from the Big Bang and known as Cosmic Background Radiation.
Cosmic Background Radiation is heat radiation that only began being emitted 350,000 years after the Big Bang. This radiation, emitted everywhere in the universe, represents a snapshot of the 350,000-year-old universe, and can be observed rather like a fossil in the present day. This radiation, first discovered in 1965, was recognised as definitive proof of the Big Bang with various studies and observations, and was investigated in great detail. Data obtained from the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite in 1992 confirmed the estimates made in the 1960s and revealed that there were ripples in the Cosmic Background Radiation (3) . Although at that time a partial link had been determined between these and the formation of the galaxies, that link could not be definitely shown until now.
Data obtained from the COBE satellite in 1992 revealed minute fluctuations in the emission of Cosmic.
However, that important link was constructed in the latest studies. Colless and Eisenstein's teams determined a match between the ripples seen in Cosmic Background Radiation and those in the distances between galaxies. It was thus established that the galaxies seeded in places where matter that emerged 350,000 years after the Big Bang concentrated in slightly higher densities.
At a press conference on the subject, Dr. Eisenstein said that the way galaxies are scattered across the sky now corresponds to the sound waves that gave rise to that distribution. Researchers think that gravity affected the waves and shaped the galaxies. Eisenstein made the following comment:
"We regard this as smoking-gun evidence that gravity has played the major role in growing from the initial seeds in the microwave background (left over from the Big Bang) into the galaxies and clusters of galaxies that we see around us." (4)

In a statement to the AAP news agency, Russell Cannon, from the other research team, noted that the findings were of the greatest importance, and summarised the significance of the research in these terms:

"What we've done is show the pattern of the galaxies, the distribution of the galaxies which we see here and now, is completely consistent with this other pattern that's seen in remnants of the big bang…" (5)
Findings were also obtained from the study regarding the levels of matter and energy that constitute the universe, and the universe's geometrical form. According to these, the universe consists of 4% normal matter, 25% dark matter (matter that cannot be observed but that is calculated to exist), and the rest of dark energy (mysterious energy that leads to the universe expanding faster than expected). As for the geometrical shape of the universe - it is flat.
The findings made in these studies have further strengthened the Big Bang theory. Dr. Cannon said that the research added serious weight to the Big Bang theory about the origin of the universe and emphasized that support in these words:

 "We've known for a long time that the best theory for the universe is the Big Bang -- that it started in some enormous explosion in a tiny space and it expanded ever since." (6)
In a comment regarding the studies, Sir Martin Rees, the well-known Cambridge University astronomer, noted that despite using different statistical techniques and observations, the teams had arrived at the same conclusion, and that he regarded this as an indication of the results' accuracy (7) .
Physicsweb.org, one of the most important physical sciences portals on the Internet, commented that the studies "provide further evidence for the standard big bang plus inflation model of cosmology." (8)
Scientists learned that the universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and was expanding (Inflation) by reading the radiation and heavenly bodies in space thanks to the possibilities of modern science. However, these fundamental data are not at all new to mankind.
References
1- "Galaxy patterns reveal missing link to Big Bang," January 12, 2005, online at: http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Media/Media_Releases/_2005/_January/_120105redshift.asp
 2- "Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies", submitted to Astrophysical Journal on December 31st, 2004. See. Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "THE COSMIC YARDSTICK--Sloan Digital Sky Survey astronomers measure role of dark matter, dark energy and gravity in the distribution of galaxies," January 11, 2005, online at: http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20050111.yardstick.html
 3- "Galaxy patterns reveal missing link to Big Bang", January 12, 2005
 4- Deborah Zabarenko, "'Cosmological ruler' helps measure the universe," January 11, 2005, online at: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7297222
 5- "Scientists Score Galaxy Breakthrough," AAP, January 13, 2005, online at: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/Scientists-Score-Galaxy-Breakthrough-39646.html
 6- "Scientists Score Galaxy Breakthrough", AAP.
 7- Maggie McKee, "Big bang sound waves explain galaxy clustering," NewScientist.com News Service, January 12, 2005, online at: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6871; Mark Peplow, "Echoes of Big Bang found in galaxies," News@nature.com, January 12, 2005, online at: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050110/full/050110-8.html
 8- "Galaxy surveys put cosmology on sound footing," January 12, 2005, online at: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/1/7/1
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: 22971
  • Liked:
FINE TUNNING PARAMETERS FOR UNIVERSE
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2017, 04:47:58 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.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22971
  • Liked:
GREATEST DESIGN: UNIVERSE
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2017, 06:37:20 PM »
There are unchangeable fundamental laws in the universe, which affect all animate and inanimate beings alike. These laws are proofs that illustrate the perfection in the creation of the universe just as are the flawless creatures that live therein. Today, these hints are presented to us as laws of physics as discovered largely by physicists. The laws ordinarily accepted as “laws of physics” are nothing but the evidence of the perfection in creation of God.
Let us give just a few examples of the perfection of design in the universe.
For instance, let us examine one of a dozen crucial properties of rainwater: the “viscosity of water”.
Different liquids have different degrees of velocity. However, the viscosity of water is perfect for the use of all creatures. If it was a little higher than it is, plants could not have used it for transporting the nutrients vitally important for survival within their capillary tubes.
If the viscosity of water were lower than it is, the flow of rivers would have been a great deal different, hence the mountain formations would have changed, valleys and plateaus would not have formed, and rocks could not have disintegrated to form soil.
Water also facilitates the circulation of the red blood cells that defend our bodies against microbes and dangerous substances. If water's viscosity were greater, the movement of these cells within the vessels would have been totally impossible, the heart would have been overwhelmed in pumping the blood and would possibly have failed to obtain the energy necessary for this job.
Even these few examples sufficiently illustrate that water is a fluid that has been especially created for living beings.
 
Balance of Forces
What would happen if the gravitational force were greater than it is today? Running or walking would be impossible. Humans and animals would spend much more energy moving about, which would diminish the energy resources of the earth. What if gravity were less powerful? Light objects could not maintain their state of balance.
For instance, dust particles picked up by breezes would float in the air for long periods. The speed of raindrops would decrease, and they possibly would evaporate before reaching the ground. Rivers would flow more slowly and hence electricity would not be generated at the same rate.
All this is rooted in the property of the gravitational pull of masses. Newton's law of gravitation states that the force of the gravitational attraction between objects depends on their masses and the distance between them. Hence, if the distance between two stars is increased three times, the gravitational force is decreased by a factor of nine, or if the distance is decreased to half, the force of gravity is increased four times.
This law helps explain the current positions of the earth, moon and planets. If the law of gravitation were different, for example, if the gravitational force were increased as the distance increased, the orbits of the planets would not be elliptical and they would collapse into the sun. If it were weaker, the earth would be set on a course steadily away from the sun. So, if the force of gravity did not have precisely the value it does, the earth would either collide with the sun or be lost in the depths of space.
What if Planck's Constant were Different?
All forms of electromagnetic energy, i.e. heat, light, etc. are governed by Planck's Constant. If this minute number were a different size, then the heat we sense in front of a fire would have been much stronger. Either, at one extreme, the smallest fire could have contained enough energy to burn us up or at the other extreme, even a giant fireball the size of the sun would not have been sufficient to warm the earth.
We encounter different forms of energy all the time. For instance, even the heat that we sense in front of the fire has been created with intricate balances.
In physics, energy is assumed to radiate not as a wave but in small particular amounts called “quanta”. In calculating the radiant energy, a certain unchanging value called Planck's Constant is used. This number is generally small enough to be considered negligible. This number is one of the fundamental and unchanging indices in nature, which is approximately expressed as 6.626x10- 34. In any situation involving radiation, if the energy of a photon is divided by its frequency the result will always equal this constant. All forms of electromagnetic energy, i.e. heat, light, etc. are governed by Planck's Constant.
If this minute number were a different size, then the heat we sense in front of a fire would have been much stronger. Either, at one extreme, the smallest fire could have contained enough energy to burn us up or at the other extreme, even a giant fireball the size of the sun would not have been sufficient to warm the earth.
Frictional Force
Frictional forces are generally considered inconveniences, as they are encountered especially while moving things in our daily lives. However, what would the world be like if frictional forces were completely eliminated? Pens and papers would slip out of our hands and fall down from the table to the floor, tables would slide to the corners of rooms, and in short all objects would fall and roll until everything finally came to a stop at the lowest point. In a frictionless world, all knots would untie, screws and nails would come off, no cars could ever brake, while sounds would never die but echoe endlessly.
All products of technology make use of friction in one form or the other. The engine of a vehicle functions by help of friction .
All of these laws of physics are clear proofs that the universe, just like all the creatures within it, is a product of divine design. In fact, the laws of physics are nothing but human explanations and descriptions of the divine order that God has created. God has created the unchanging laws of order in the universe and put them in the service of humans so that man will reflect upon and understand the Sovereignty of God and give thanks for His blessings.
One can continue giving countless examples in illustration of the order in the creation of God. Every created thing since the formation of the universe millions of years ago has been brought into existence by nothing other than the Omniscience and Sovereignty of God. 
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: 22971
  • Liked:
Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2017, 08:50:59 PM »
Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."  Although the study described one of the few molecular successes of evolutionary theory, the trend has been that molecular biology contradicts much of evolutionary theory. (Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular Darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112).
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