Category: science
The Case For A Creator Part IV: Cosmology
Written by Lance Ponder
Friday, 30 May 2008 02:58
18 Comments

Today most cosmologists believe the universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. However, a beginning for the universe strongly suggests an intelligent causal agent to wind things up, as it were. Since the majority of cosmologists are committed to naturalism, they have been forced to search for a cosmological silver bullet: an explanation for how the universe could spring into existence uncaused.

The oscillating universe theory is one such silver bullet. It tries to get around the question of how the universe began by suggesting the universe oscillates. But if this is true, what caused the oscillations to begin? Another theory, recently put forward, was of multiple overlapping universes existing simultaneously. For this to be true there would have to be some sort of “universe factory” to crank out universes. Ignoring the obvious requirement for a higher intelligence to design such an unlikely universe factory, these same scientists keep grasping for some sort of naturalistic explanation where there is none.

Deist or Theist?

Suppose you were a devoted atheist until you sat down and pondered all this. Then, after researching the particulars on your own, with an open mind, you came to the same conclusion I’ve presented here: There must be a God. The next logical query would be whether this God is personal or impersonal. A deist is a person who believes God is an impersonal distant intelligence who does not interact with His creation. A theist is a person who believes God is personally involved with and cares deeply about His creation, even having personal relationships with individuals. If you are wondering which kind of God to believe in, perhaps you should continue to examine the evidence to determine which is more likely, and therefore more believable.

The Kalam principle suggests a personal Creator. If a man were to walk into a kitchen and find a pot of water boiling, he might ask his wife why the water is boiling. His wife could explain it in terms of kinetic energy or she could say she was making him tea. The former explanation is impersonal (scientific only) while the latter is personal. Since there is no scientific (impersonal) explanation for creation, the reason must be personal. Moreover, if God is indeed personally involved with His creation, it seems logical to seek Him if we are to seek our origin and thus our destiny.

What are the odds of a livable planet?

The odds of life being possible anywhere in the universe is astronomically low. To have the correct combination of gravity, atmosphere, temperature, water, minerals, radiation and radiation shielding, solar characteristics, lunar characteristics, and so forth requires a lengthy list of measured constants to be in perfect alignment. Suppose there were only ten such diverse variables. Suppose each variable had only ten possible values. Life requires each of the ten dials to be set correctly. If any one dial is off, even by a value of 1, life cannot exist. That means the odds of a particular solar system having a habitable planet is one in 10 billion. Most stars do not have the energy range, light range, size, or stability of our sun. Most planets we’ve been able to observe orbiting distant stars are not the perfect distance from their star and not of appropriate mass or composition. Most stars are not of the right composition. Near the center of the Milky Way there is tremendous violent radiation making life anywhere near the nucleus highly unlikely. Of the few planets discovered around other stars, they have been found to have radically oblong orbits compared with the orbits of most of our planets. Earth is in the right part of the galaxy. It is orbiting a star of the correct size and composition, at the right distance and speed, with the right solar and lunar gravitational forces, the right magnetic force, the right ozone, the right outer radiation belt, the right amount of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere, the right amount of oxygen, the right amount of water, the right temperature range, and in general, all the right chemistry to support life. Given these factors, the odds of getting a habitable planet elsewhere in the universe are considerably lower than one in ten billion, yet here we are.

Nuclear chemistry, the Big Bang and Creation cosmology

Nuclear chemistry doesn’t support Big Bang cosmology. Rather it points to a created cosmology. Here’s why.

First, according to the Big Bang theory, large clouds of swirling dust in space spun out into solar systems. Initially all the dust which a solar system is made from is essentially uniformly randomly scattered bits of the same stuff. But if this theory is correct, why is the sun almost entirely hydrogen while the planets are all made of almost entirely heavier elements? Centrifugal force throwing heavy elements out does not account for the observed phenomena.

Second, fusion of light elements gives off energy. This is why the fusion reactions in our sun emit so much energy. Fusion of any elements even slightly heavier, of helium or lithium for example, produces a small fraction of the energy compared to hydrogen fusion. It takes more energy to fuse two elements into a new element (as heavy or heavier than iron) than the fusion reaction gives off. Elements significantly heavier than iron give off more energy than they absorb when they undergo a fission reaction, the nuclear process of breaking a heavy element down into two or more smaller elements with a net release of energy.

Third, all matter is made up of atoms (or parts of atoms). If the sun is made of light elements and the planets are made of heavy elements, there must have been some sort of sorting process. Centrifugal force can’t account for it for at least two reasons: First, the lighter elements should have been thrown to the outside with gravitational forces drawing the heaviest elements to the center. However, in the case of the sun and planets, the opposite is observed, and second, when a spinning mass ejects parts, those parts spin out in the same direction. Two planets spin backward, several moons spin backward, and one planet spins almost completely sideways. The planets all spin at different rates and different angles, in both directions, yet all orbit the sun at the perfect speed given their mass and distance.

Finally, consider the quantum process of fusion itself occurring continuously in our sun. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, mass and energy can be equated using a constant value. In the fusion process, energy is given off because the net mass is reduced by the fusion reaction. In other words, a helium atom with two protons is lighter than the sum of two hydrogen atoms. It is logical that in a given sample, the new mass would be less than the original mass, and the density would be higher. The combined effect would be to reduce the total volume required to hold the sample. In a sample the size of the sun, the same logic implies the sun should be shrinking. Of course the laws of physics are a little more complicated, but the basic logic does apply to hydrogen and helium.

Although there’s been a great amount of debate in the astrophysics community, numerous studies since the 1960s, including a recent study measuring gravity waves in the sun, indicates the sun is shrinking at a rate of up to 4.5 km per year. The average data suggests a likely real shrink rate closer to about 2 km per year. If we trace these laws backward in time 1 million years, adding the “shrink rate” back to the sun’s mass for each year of regress, the sun’s surface should be 1 million km closer to earth, which, of course would make life impossible given the time frame assumed by cosmologists for that period in earth’s history. This is significant, because even if the burn rate of the sun isn’t constant, (or if you assume the size reduction is related to the helium/hydrogen ratio, further assuming the sun began as 100% hydrogen), at a billion years old, the earth would have either started out inside the sun or would have continually drawn closer to the sun with time. All this assumes a purely naturalistic cosmology, which doesn’t account for the observed data.

The Case for a Creator: Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution

The Case for a Creator: Part II Homologous Embryos

The Case for a Creator: Part III Causality and Cosmology

Editor's Note: Lance Ponder A.K.A. FKI Professor is the author of Ask James One, and  a frequent MTW contributor.

 

 
More tilting at mammoths
Written by Chris
Wednesday, 16 April 2008 16:27
No Comments

Recent find shows more assumptions than certitude

MSNBC via Reuters reveals that the remains of yet another baby mammoth are being studied in Russia. So far they have done the typical medical scans that scientists do for ancient creatures/humans in order to better understand the inner organs of the animal. They are also decoding its genome.

This really is a fascinating study, with scientists invoking visions of “Jurassic Park.” While they do not specifically reference the movie, they are discussing the idea of resurrecting some now extinct gigantic ancient birds from New Zealand or Madagascar (such as the Moa, and a species of enormous “Lord of the Rings” size eagles).

For the purposes of comparing homologous features, I have included a link to the MSNBC article on the mammoth, as well as a link to a news story about an African elephant that was born just last year at the Louisville zoo. Each article has photographs enabling you to compare the specimens for yourself.

In examining the photos, I’d like to call your attention to some features that can be seen in the prehistoric mammoth.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the mammoth has been damaged. Predators or onsite conditions seem to have destroyed the ear and the tail which are both mostly missing.

Essentially the mammoth (because it was of the woolly variety) would have had hair. But conditions apparently rendered the hair so fragile that it had simply fallen out, decomposed, etc.

Scientists have concluded that the cause of death was drowning. However, there is still some debate as to whether this is true or not. It is my understanding, that in studies of mammoths discovered all over Russia and even in Alaska, most have died with a single common denominator; they had silt in their systems. Silt is certainly different from “wind-blown” material, but it is questionable whether silt would appear different from wind-blown material in a find like this.

In addition to the linked African elephant photos in this post, I have also seen newspaper photos of the same elephant. When you compare these photos with the photos of the prehistoric mammoth, you find that they appear to be nearly identical. Granted, it seems that the prehistoric elephant’s ears were probably smaller (judging from point of attachment), making it similar to the Asian variety of elephant. This makes total sense, since Asian elephants are closer geographically to where this latest find was discovered.

Of course, missing from the modern elephant is the woolly hair. The point of the matter, is that these creatures sans the hair in the modern version and aside from the probable Asian/African difference show that forms even over thousands of years do not necessarily change that much. This is not an indication of a “higher form of life” as evolutionary theory predicts. When we witness the progression from an ancient “elephant” type to the modern one, there is a loss of genetic information, indicating “DE-EVOLUTION,” degradation.

In the meantime, we may not be able to bring back the dinosaur (we just don’t have enough genetic material or a modern host “mother” to artificially do so) but please, scientists, do try to bring back those “Lord of the Rings” size eagles and the moa!

By: Chris of themuseandthescribe.com

Sources:

1.. “Baby Mammoth Reveals Ancient Secrets,” Reuters, April 10, 2008, by Dmitry Solovyov.

2. “ Louisville Zoo Makes History with Successful Elephant Birth,” Wave 3 TV News, March 26, 2007.

 
FDA now says it’s ‘okay to clone steak’
Written by Chad Phillips
Tuesday, 15 January 2008 21:16
No Comments

"Okay, yeah," I said. I'll have the 20 oz Porterhouse, baked potato (extra butter), large green salad, and um…a slice of Dutch Apple Pie." But then my server asked, "How do want that steak, sir?" To which I replied, "Cloned."

Not bloody; not rare….cloned!

It was reported today that the FDA has now come out in favor of producing cloned livestock, etc., for the purpose of human consumption.

The reasoning behind the push for allowing this process (allegedly) is because cloning the best breeds will produce a generation of superbreeds which you, me, and corporate America can exploit…okay, mostly corporate America. Now I'm wondering if the price of fillet mignon will go down…probably not.

Listen, I like eating dead animals as much as the next guy, but I like to point out the obvious; just who the hell do these people think they are. They're screwing with mother nature, here. Gene manipulation is one thing, but cloning produces genetic changes which are unpredictable in at least a couple of ways: First, we don't know how those genetic alterations will affect the clone. Second, we don't know how ingesting food produced from these clones over a long period of time will affect us. And yet the FDA says, "Oh there's no risk and we're so confident that there's no risk, we're hoping we can put this stuff on the shelf with no labels." That's right. No labels. They do say that they may put labels on food that isn't cloned, though. That's kind of curious isn't it. I can hear the grocer now, "Hey! You don't want to eat that; it's organic!" Please!

Nevermind the moral and ethical ramifications, the FDA is reassuring us that the "risk assessment is 'strictly a science-based evaluation.'" Boy that sets my mind at ease. This is the FDA folks, one of the long arms of the Federal government and God knows they're "never" wrong. But here's a short excerpt from The Washington Post which describes the over-all scientific rigor used in determining the FDA's conclusion when it comes to gene alteration in clones.

…agency scientists decided to use the same simple but effective standard used by farmers since the dawn of agriculture: If a farm animal appears in all respects to be healthy, then presume that food from that animal is safe to eat.

There you have it: Looks like a cow ta me. Dig in boys! And six months later you're wondering why you're suddenly having health problems. "Gee doc," you say. "No. There's no history of this in my family. I just woke up this morning and had an extra nose."

Once again, um…I'll point out the obvious. The reason the observation method was, by and large, reliable (up until recently) is because the technology for cloning was nonexistent. And aside from selective breeding, we sure weren't screwing around with the genes of these animals. According to the article on which this post is based, some of the clones in question even had extra genes added, which had "nothing to do with food production.