Information Gathered from Hugh Ross’s Books about God of the Universe as well as the Science that runs the Universe. (1) The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
ormation Gathered from Hugh Ross’s ks about God of the Universe as we s the Science that runs the Univer of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of stion: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesi me: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Co the Cosmos: How the latest Scientific Disc os: The Extra-Dimensionality of God: What Recent Discoveries i Astrophysics Reveal abou and Love of God
Transcript
Information Gathered from Hugh Ross’sBooks about God of the Universe as well as the Science that runs the Universe
(1) The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator(2) The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis(3) Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy(4) The Creator and the Cosmos: How the latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God(5) Beyond The Cosmos: The Extra-Dimensionality of God: What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal about the Glory and Love of God
The Six Genesis Creation Days – Day One
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. AndGod saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Initially, there was nothing, and then light was created. As it moved out, away from the creation point, it became mass as electromagnetic radiation was converted into mass in the form of the elementary particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. This is the “Big Bang” event that is believed to have occurred at the beginning of time. As things were formed, they all began moving away from the creation point and outward in three dimensions. All scientists agree that Life on planet earth originated in the oceans, where the Spirit of God was hovering, or moving over the waters.
Genesis 1:1-5
The Six Genesis Creation Days – Day Two
Genesis 1:6-8
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, andlet it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
This is the beginning of the hydrological cycle that dominated the weather on Earth, the condensation and evaporation of water gives the storms their energy.
The Six Genesis Creation Days – Day Three
Genesis 1:9-13
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning,a third day.
This is the proper order of how life began on earth. There were plants before any animals could be present as they were the food for the animals, which initially were all herbivores living on plants. Note that it specifically stated thatseeds were present so that the plants could reproduce and spread after their kind, in other words one species of plant could not change into another species of plant.
The Six Genesis Creation Days – Day Four
Genesis 1:14-19Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to governthe night; He made the stars also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
The sun and stars had been created earlier, but from our viewing point on earth nothing could be seen due to the heavy dense atmosphere. So at this point the atmosphere was made transparent so that sun light could reach the surface where plants needed the sun light for photosynthesis. The moon was also created at this point, and that explains the atmosphere clearing, from the collision that formed the moon. This would place the timing of the fourth day about 4.25 billion years ago (slide 7).
The Six Genesis Creation Days – Day Five
Genesis 1:20-23Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” And Godcreated the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, withwhich the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
We know that life began in the oceans not on land, so it makes sense that God would create creatures in the oceans first as well. The Great Sea Monsters could be the dinosaurs, as they began first in the oceans, and then moved on to land. When God saw how much they ate, and dominated the earth, God did not want them to destroy His prized creation, so he exterminated them by Flood Basalt volcanism (Daccon Flood Basalts, 65 MYr).Note that with creatures of the sea God used the same wording, that they would reproduce “after their kind”.
The Six Genesis Creation Days – Day Six
Genesis 1:24-31Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattleafter their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and overthe birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over everycreeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birdsof the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and everygreen plant for food”, and it was so. And God saw all that He made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, theSixth day.
The Six Genesis Creation Days – Day Six
Animals were created before man, who was introduced later to rule over and control the other animals. Man has been responsible for many species going extinct and is not controlled or threatened by any animal, Man is in charge of Planet Earth. This is an assumed responsibility, and it is hard to live up to, and as a species, we have failed!
The Six Genesis Creation Days – Day Seven
Genesis 2:1-4
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. And bythe seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
Biologically we find that we are not discovering any new species, which would agree with the statement that God’s creating of different life forms has ceased completely. All we see are slight variations occurring to compensate for changes in our environment, which is what Darwin’s idea of evolution states. We are still in the seventh day, which also tells us that the use of Yom did mean long time periods not 24 hr days. God is waiting for his return to Earth his creation; this will occur at the return of Jesus as foretold in the book of revelation.
Young or Old Earth?In 1642 Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor John Lightfoot calculated a date for the creation of the universe of September 17, 3928 BC, based upon the genealogies in Genesis, Exodus, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. This was corrected in 1650 by James Ussher, an Anglican archbishop in Ireland, making it October 3, 4004 BC. These dates and time scale were widely backed by the church for many years, driving many scientists and other people away from God!
In 1961 Henry Morris, a civil engineering Professor and John Whitcomb, a theology Professor, published a book entitled The Genesis Flood, in 1963 the Creation Research Society (CRS) was formed to push the young-earth teaching. By 1970 the teaching of evolution became legal in all states, the Institute for Creation Research was established in 1972 to push the idea of a young earth and God’s creation of the earth. With these dates, the Earth must be 6,000 years old in 2004!
The Hebrew word yom is used in Genesis for day, and in Hebrew it has three meanings; (a) sunrise to sunset, (b) sunset to sunset, (c) a segment of time withoutany reference to solar days (anywhere from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch). It cannot be used for infinite time, but only for a specific time period.
How do the ages that are found by Science agree with these “ideas of young age” that are being pushed by the young earth creationists?
Age of the Universe1. Expansion of the Universe from the “Big Bang”! Astronomers have been able to measure the motion and speed of Galaxies and the even older, more power-packed bodies called quasars. What they see is that the farther away the object, the faster it is moving away. This set of facts tells us that the universe is expanding outward from a starting point in space and time. Confirmation of this expansion time measurement comes from observations of the temperature and smoothness of the cosmic background radiation. The latest results give dates accurate to within 15%.
2. Stellar Burning! The color and brightness of a star will tell how long it has been burning if we know it’s mass. This is based upon models of stellar formation and upon nuclear physics experiments and theories. These estimates of the ages of the stars should be accurate to within 5%.
3. Abundances of Radioactive Elements! Heavy elements are produced only during fast neutron capture in supernovae explosions. These giant exploding stars produce the heavy elements by neutron capture on a rapid time scale. Since we still have some of these long lived isotopes on earth, we can tell the age of the earth. Since shorter isotopes are not present, we also know that the earth is old and not young.
Components of Matter
All Matter consists of Elementary Particles, called Atoms, which are composed of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. (P+, N or n, e-) (A proton is normally designated as 1H)Neutrons are unstable outside of the Nucleus, where they are combined with protons and held together by the strong Nuclear Force, without being combined with a proton, a Neutron is unstable, and decays by a “Radioactive Decay” process.
n P+ + e- + Energy or n 1H + e- + Energy
This process is called Beta decay and occurs when ever there are too many protons in the nucleus of an atom. A “Beta” particleis nothing more than a high speed (Energy!) electron, normally traveling at a speed of a fraction of the speed of light( 3.7 x 108m/s) with an energy of millions of electron volts.
How are Elements Produced? - I
Neutron Capture – Long Time Scale – Star – Hydrogen Burning This process is called Nuclear Fusion and is the source of Energy in Stars such as our sun!
1H + 1H 2H + +
( + = a positive electron, or positron, a particle of anti-matter!) ( 2H = Deuterium, a “Heavy” isotope of Hydrogen, containing one Proton and one Neutron)
When anti-matter and normal matter come into contact with each other, they destroy each other, producing energy in the form of Gamma-rays! e- + + 2 ( 511 kev)
How are Elements Produced? - II
The process continues until nearly all of the hydrogen has been used up producing Helium (several hundred billion years), and then the star undergoes the second phase of stellar burning, helium fusion.
1H + 1H 2H + H + 2HHe (He = Helium)
2H + 2H 3He + 1n 2H + 3H 4He + 1n
3He + 3He 4He + 2 1H 3He + 1H 4He + +
This is where our Star, the Sun obtains it’s energy currently, and these Nuclear reactions are occurring producing energy (light and heat) as well as Helium. This will continue for several billion years.
How are Elements Produced? - III
Radioactive decay – There are several forms of radioactive decay, we will only consider two:
Alpha decay – Heavy elements, Uranium and Thorium etc. 238U 4 + 234Th +Energy Beta decay – Neutron rich Isotopes
14C - + 14N + Energy
How are Elements Produced? - IVThe Neutrons that are produced by the previous nuclear reactionsare captured by other isotopes producing neutron rich isotopes. Some of these isotopes are not stable due to the large numbers of Neutrons and they undergo beta decay, where a neutron decays into a proton, producing a new element! Several examples are given below, and on the following slides.
How are Elements Produced? - V21Ne(n,)22Ne (Stable)22Ne(n,)23Ne (Radioactive, 37.2 sec T1/2) 23Ne - + 23Na23Na(n,)24Na (Radioactive, 15.0 hr T1/2) 24Na - + 24Mg24Mg(n,)25Mg (Stable)25Mg(n,)26Mg (Stable)26Mg(n,)27Mg (Radioactive, 9.4 min T1/2) 27Mg - + 27Al27Al(n,)28Al (Radioactive, 2.3 min T1/2) 28Al - + 28Si28Si(n,)29Si (Stable)29Si(n,)30Si (Stable)30Si(n,)31Si (Radioactive, 2.6 hr T1/2) 31Si - + 31P31P(n,)32P (Stable)32P(n,)33P (Radioactive, 14.3 d T1/2) 33P - + 33S33S(n,)34S (Stable)34S(n,)35S (Radioactive, 87.2 d T1/2) 35S - + 35Cl35Cl(n,)36Cl (Radioactive, 3.01 x 105yr T1/2) 36Cl - + 36Ar 36Ar(n,)37Ar (Radioactive, 35.0 d T1/2) 37Ar + e- 37Cl
How are Elements Produced? - VI37Cl(n,)38Cl (Radioactive, 37.2 min T1/2) 38Cl - + 38Ar38Ar(n,)39Ar (Radioactive, 369 yr T1/2) 39Ar - + 39K39K(n,)40K (Radioactive, 1.28 x 109yr T1/2) 40K - + 40Ca40Ca(n,)41Ca (Radioactive, 1.03 x 105yr T1/2) 41Ca + e- 41K41K(n,)42K (Radioactive, 12.4 hr T1/2) 42K - + 42Ca42Ca(n,)43Ca (Stable)43Ca(n,)44Ca (Stable)44Ca(n,)45Ca (Radioactive, 162.7 d T1/2) 45Ca - + 45Sc45Sc(n,)46Sc (Radioactive, 83.8 d T1/2) 46Sc - + 46Ti46Ti(n,)47Ti (Stable)47Ti(n,)48Ti (Stable)48Ti(n,)49Ti (Stable)49Ti(n,)50Ti (Stable)50Ti(n,)51Ti (Radioactive, 5.76 min T1/2) 51Ti - + 51V51V(n,)52V (Radioactive, 3.76 min T1/2) 52V - + 52Cr52Cr(n,)53Cr (Stable)
How are Elements Produced? - VIIBecause of gaps in Nuclear Stability, and the binding energy per Nucleon, it is impossible to make elements above Iron by simple Neutron capture and Beta decay! The only way to produce elements heavier than Iron is by neutron capture on a fast time scale before any of the short lived intermediaries can decay. This must occur during a super Novae explosion, where many neutrons can be captured in a very short time scale (~ 10-6sec). Since elements above Iron are very common on earth, we must have been cycled through at least one super Novae explosion. Followed by subsequent beta decay until we reach Nuclear stability.
Example: 55Fe(n,)56Fe(n,)57Fe(20n,20)87Fe
87Fe - + 87Co 8- + 79Br
How are Elements Produced? - VIIISince there are no Stable elements above the mass of Bismuth, we must have neutron capture on a fast time scale to make elements such as Uranium, which do exist on earth! For example:
209Bi + 29 1n 9- + 238U
The existence of heavy elements on earth with long half-livesshows that every thing on Earth was at least once cycled through a supernovae explosion.
Known nuclides
Clarification of some fine Points!On some of the previous slides, I was using Scientific notation, and it needs to be explained! In Scientific notation, a number that is very large, or very small can be indicated in an abbreviated form.A number is given as a number between 1 & 10 followed by a factor of 10 multiplier. N x 10n Examples:
100 = 1 x 102 one hundred 1,000 = 1 x 103 one thousand 1,000,000 = 1 x 106 one million 1,000,000,000 = 1 x 109 one billion 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 x 1012 one trillion 0.001 = 1 x 10-3 one thousandth 0.0000001 = 1 x 10-6 one millionth 0.0000000001 = 1 x 10-9 one billionth 0.0000000000001 = 1 x 10-12 one trillionth
Natural Decay Series of Existing Isotopes40K 40Ar + -
T1/2 = 1.29 x 109yrs
87Rb 87Sr + -
T1/2 = 4.8 x 1010yrs
232 Th 208 Pb T1/2 = 1.4 x 1010yrs
235U 207 Pb T1/2 = 7 x 108yrs
238U 206 Pb T1/2 = 4.5 x 109yrs
Radiogenic Dating methodsThe Parent radioisotope decays to the daughter in the time indicated as the half-life. In all changes of this type, ½ of the atoms decays to the daughter in the time indicated. By measuring the quantity of the parent isotope present and the quantity of the daughter present one can calculate the quantity of time that has elapsed since the material being tested has been isolated from outside interference.
In the case of the Long lived Uranium and Thorium decay series, there are elements in the decay series that are Noble gases, and being a gas could be lost, but if they are lost, the apparent decay time would be shorter, not longer!
Models of Element production by the “S” and “R” processes are used to know how much was initially formed in the Primordial Universe.
Figure 21.3: The decay of a 10.0-g sample of strontium-90 over time.
Radioactive Dating MethodsThe most common dating method is 14C which has a Half-life of 5730 years decays by Beta emission (a high energy electron), in which a neutron changes into a proton to produce the product 14N.
Professor Willard Libby developed the 14C dating method, and received the Nobel prize for developing the technique in 1960. This method has been used for many years, and as long as representative samples are used, the method delivers excellent data, on samples with ages up to approximately 50,000 years.
To measure the very long times needed in the ages of the Earth and Universe, we use the very long lived naturally occurring isotopes such as: 235U, T1/2 = 7.04 x 108 yrs (704,000,000 yrs); Eventually forming 207Pb238U, T1/2 = 4.47 x 109 yrs (4,470,000,000 yrs); “ “ 206Pb232Th, T1/2 = 1.40 x 1010 yrs (14,000,000,000 yrs). “ “ 208Pb One Stable Isotope of Lead is 204Pb which is have not found in any radioactive decay series of a naturally occurring Isotope; indicating that it was formed in the original “big bang” event, and represents premordial formation.
Each of these decays to a different lead isotope which can be measured, giving a dating method that can be used to date the ages of not only the Earth, but almost any physical object that contains matter.
238U -- 8 decays and 6 decays leaves you with -- 206Pb
Age of the UniverseRelaxation times of star clusters > 4 Billion Years
Erosion on Mercury, Mars, and the Moon > 4 Billion Years
Star stream interactions in galaxies > 8 Billion Years
Expansion of the Universe 15.5 + 4.0 Billion Years
Color-Luminosity fitting of Stars 18.0 + 2.4 “ “
Nucleochronology (Radioisotopes) 17.0 + 4.0 “ “
Deuterium abundance and mass density 19.0 + 5.0 “ “
Anthropic Principles 17.0 + 7.0 “ “ Mean age = 17 + 3 Billion Years
The Greatest Discovery of the Century-I1) Fact: The universe is only billions of years old, not quadrillions or a nearly infinite number of years. Theological significance: Religious and philosophical systems depending on infinite or near infinite age have no foundation in reality.2) Fact: The universe can be traced back to a single, ultimate origin of matter, energy, time and space (with the dimensions of length, width, and height). Theological significance: The cause of the universe – i.e., the Entity (Creator) who brought the universe into existence – existed and created from out-side (independent) of the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe.
The Greatest Discovery of the Century-II3) Fact: The universe, our galaxy, and our solar system exhibit more than sixty characteristics that require exquisite fine-tuning for their very existence, and also for the existence of life (any kind of physical life, not just life as we know it). Theological significance: The Entity (Creator) who brought the universe into existence must be personal, intelligent, powerful, and caring, for only a super-intelligent, super-powerful Person could design and manufacture what we see, including life; caring, for only care could explain the enormous investment of creative effort, the attention to intricate detail, and the comprehensive provision for needs.
Observations by the COBE satellite of tiny ripples in the radiation left over from the “Big Bang”. Evidence for the birth of the universe!
The Nucleochronology dating methods use the half-lives of long lived radioisotopes and their daughters to measure the long time periods involved in the ages of the Earth, Moon, and Universe.
Age of the Universe 17+ 3 Billion Years
Age of the Earth 4.57 Billion Years
Age of the moon 4.25 Billion Years
Age of the Solar System
-
Ages in the Earth-Moon systemBased upon Earth’s position relative to the sun, it should have an atmosphere 40 times as dense as it has! What happened to the atmosphere? The answer is our over sized moon! Something happened about 4.25 billion years ago.
The moon is moving away from Earth at a rate of several cm per year! This implies that the moon was in contact with the Earth approximately 4.25 billion years ago.
The moon is younger than the earth. Radioisotopic dating methods show that the Earth is4.57 billion years old, and from Apollo samples brought back from the moon, it is only 4.25 billion years old.
The size of the moon also puts a drag on the earth’s rotational velocity, and the Earth’srotation is definitely slowing down.
The moon also has a slightly, but significantly different chemical and Isotopic composition than does the Earth, proving that they did not form from the same dust cloud orbiting around the sun.
It is postulated that an impactor approximately the size of Mars (nine times the mass of the moon, and one-ninth the mass of Earth), hit the earth and blew the atmosphere (containing methane and ammonia) into space, but retaining the water, which is heavier.
The Response of Young Earth CreationistsChallenge 1: Astronomers are wrong about the distance to stars and galaxies.
Reply: The implication is that astronomers determine the distances of cosmic objects by only one method: the red-shifts of spectral lines. And because red-shift measurements of distances may possibly be off by a large percentage, the distances reported by astronomers are considered unreliable. This, however, is not true. Astronomers use a wide variety of distance measuring tools. While disagreement does exist over which arethe most reliable, the uncertainties hover around 10 to 15 percent.
Challenge 2: God could have created the light waves already in transit.
Reply: This argument obviously belongs to the appearance-of-age category. The overlooked fact here is that star light and galaxy light give direct indications of their travel distances. The spectral lines (light waves at various frequencies) of stars and galaxies are broadened in direct proportion to the distance they travel. The random motions of gas clouds in space cause this effect. The radiation between spectral lines, called the continuum, grows redder as it travels through interstellar and intergalactic dust. This reddening, like the effect of forest fire smoke on our view of the sun, is directly proportional to the distance the light has traveled. Both theory and observations confirm that the broadening and reddening effects are reliable indicators of light-travel time anddistance, even up to billions of light years.
The Response of Young Earth CreationistsChallenge 3: Light may have traveled faster a few thousand years ago.
Reply: The work of two Australian creationists has been widely publicized among proponents of a young universe. Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman teamed up to propose that the reason the universe appears old is that light used to travel much faster than it does today. Given decay in light’s velocity, the present value of the velocity of light would yield an inaccurate measure of the size and age for the universe. The basis for this claim is a misinterpretation of data from speed-of-light measurements made over many years. What the data actually show is the increasing refinement of measurements, not a change in velocity. The first calculation of the speed of light was attempted in 1675 by Olaus Romer, a Danish astronomer. His figure was about 3% higher than the modern measurements show. But the uncertainty in his measurements exceeded 3%. If Romer had had more precise data for one part of his calculation, his speed-of-light figure would have agreed with modern measurements to within 0.5%. Apparently the article describing this research was misunderstood by the Australians, and they took the 1675 speed figure as evidence for the speed-of-light decreasing by 0.5%.
The Response of Young Earth Creationists
Challenge 4: Light may take a shortcut through space.
Reply: This argument arises from the work of young-universe creationist Harold Slusher, who picks up the idea proposed in 1953 by Parry Moon and DominaSpencer who were trying to overthrow Einstein’s theory of relativity. Their theory was that light could travel in a different type of space, a highly curved type of space, and therefore travel faster than its fixed speed. They backed up their theory with no mathematics, or facts, and Slusher did not know how well proven Einstein’s theory of relativity is accepted and understood by scientists.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - I
Sample Evidence A: The continents are eroding too quickly
Erosion measurements show that the continents are lowered by wind, rain, etc., at a rate of about 0.05 millimeters per year. At this rate, the continents (averaging about 800 meters in elevation) would disappear in about 16 million years. Since continents do still have considerable elevation, the earth must be younger than 16 million years.
Reply: The fallacy lies in its failure to acknowledge that lava flows, delta and continental shelf buildup (from eroded material), coral reef buildup, and uplift from colliding tectonic plates occur at rates roughly equivalent to, and in many cases far exceeding, the erosion rate. The Himalayas, for example, as a result of tectonic uplift, are rising at a rate of about 15 millimeters per year. The San Gabriel Mountains, just north of Los Angeles, are rising at an average rate of 9 millimeters per year. Lava flows have increased the land area of the state of Hawaii by several square miles since its admission into the United States in 1959. The amount of land mass added each year as a result of volcanoes and tectonics is roughly independent of the total continental land area. Therefore continental land area continues to increase until there is enough land area that the rate of erosion equals the rate of build up. The time required for the continents to build up from 0% of the global surface area to the present 30% (and equilibrium) takes about 2 billion years. Thus continental erosion is an argument for an old rather than a young earth.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - II
Sample Evidence B: Dust accumulates too quickly on the moon’s surface.
In the 1950’s measurements at Mauna Loa Volcano in Hawaii by a geophysicist found nickel on air filters, and he assumed that since it is rare in crustal material it must all be from meteorites. Using the data that meteorites are about 2.5% nickel, they calculated that some 14 million tons of space dust settles on the earth every year. Applied to a 4 billion year old moon, this would be 145 feet. Since we know that there is only about 2.5 inches on the moon, this has been used to give an age for the moon of only about 10,000 years by the young-universe creationists.
Reply: I have done 10 years of aerosol measurements at Mauna Loa myself, and the Nickel found on atmospheric aerosols is predominately of Crustal origin, not extraterrestrial. In fact the quantity of extraterrestrial material can be measured by an excess of Iridium and it is much less, amounting for only about 20 thousand tons of extraterrestrial dust falling on the earth per year. This number is in good agreement with that obtained from satellites, 23 thousand tons per year. If we use the best data available on the cosmic dust in fall rate we obtain an age of the moon of 4.25 billion years, in agreement with the radiogenic dates for the moon, not the young earth date of 6,000 years!
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - III
Sample Evidence C: The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too rapidly.
The earth’s magnetic field has decreased steadily since measurements were first taken some 150 years ago. Based on the field strength of a typical magnetic star (certainlyexceeding any conceivable value for Earth) and on the observed rate of decay, somecreationists have calculated that the decay process must have begun on Earth on more than 10,000 years ago. Thus the earth’s age must be 10,000 years or less.
Reply: The problem with this evidence is that Earth’s magnetic field does not undergo steady decay but rather follows a “sinusoidal” pattern. That is, the field strength decays,builds up, decays, builds up, etc. The proof for this pattern lies in ancient geological strata found throughout the world. The rocks reveal that the earth’s magnetic field reverses its polarity roughly every half million years. Each reversal lasts roughly 10,000 years. The earth’s magnetic field originates in the core of the earth where the Iron-Nickelmaterial that makes up the core is semi molten, and undergoes circulation patterns as heat from decaying radioisotopes is conducted away from the core. The Iron atoms, being magnetic align themselves with the earth’s magnetic field, and volcanic lava rocksformed during volcanic eruptions show the direction and strength of the earth’s magneticfield as it was when these rocks were cooled from the liquid magma.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - IV
Sample Evidence D: The sun burns by gravitational contraction and thus must be young.
Before the discovery of nuclear energy, the only explanation astronomers could offer forthe enormous energy output of the sun and other stars was gravitational contraction.Given the diameter and energy output of our sun, we can calculate that its maximum age would be about 100 million years if it were generating energy only by this process. When some measurements indicated a very slight decrease in the sun’s diameter, a number of young-earth creationists concluded that the sun’s energy output must arise only from the gravitational collapse of the sun, rather than from nuclear fusion processes at its core. Therefore, they surmised that the sun’s age must be less than 100 million years.
Reply: Again, the argument overlooks significant data. First, it has been shown that if a body of our sun’s diameter were experiencing gravitational contraction, the temperature, pressure, and other conditions at its center would inevitably ignite nuclear fusion. Furthermore, various measured characteristics of the sun - including its effective temperature, luminosity, spectra, radius, outflow of neutrinos, and mass - all guaranteethat the sun is burning by nuclear fusion and that this fusion has been proceeding forabout 5 billion years. As for the observed decrease in the sun’s diameter, the measurements cited were later found to be at odds with other visual measurements.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - V
Sample Evidence E: Galaxy clusters are not dispersed widely.
For a cluster of heavenly bodies to remain together (contained), the gravity of the system must be sufficient to overcome the velocities of the individual bodies within it. Armed with measurements of the velocities and masses for all the galaxies in a galaxy cluster, astronomers can calculate: (a) the dispersal time (time it takes for all the galaxies to leave the cluster) for clusters with total mass too small for gravitational containment; or (b) the relaxation time (time required for galaxies to assume randomized velocities) forclusters with total mass large enough for containment. Some creationists point out that when such calculations are applied to galaxy clusters, the lack of observed galaxy dispersal indicates an age for the clusters much less than a billion years.
Reply: The problem with this argument is that these calculations for dispersal and relaxation times assume not only that all the mass within the galaxy clusters is luminous but also that galaxies approximate point sources (those with diameters very much smaller than the average distances between them). On the contrary, sound evidence exists to conclude that most of the mass is non-luminous (that is, not shining by its own light production). And galaxies cannot be treated as point sources. In fact, their diameters are only about an order of magnitude smaller (that is, about ten times smaller) than the average distances between them within a given cluster.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - VI
By comparison, however, essentially all of the mass within the star clusters is visible,and the stars within the clusters are point sources. The average distances between them are at least seven orders of magnitude greater (that is, about 10 million timesgreater) than their average diameters. When dispersal and relaxation time calculations are applied to star clusters in our galaxy, many clusters show their ages to be greater than 2 billion years.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - VII
Sample Evidence F: Granite crystal halos can arise from 218Po decay only if the earth is young.
Polonium 218 is a radioactive isotope with a half-life of only three minutes. Yet halos in granite crystals that appear to arise from the decay of polonium 218 show up in what seems to be basement or primordial rock deposits. If the halos arise from primordial polonium, then how did the surrounding rocks crystallize so rapidly that the crystals were ready to receive halo impressions from the decay of polonium? The answer according toyoung-earth creationist Robert Gentry, among others, is that geologists are wrong abouttheir understanding of the processes shaping the earth shortly after its formation. Instead, they say, God must have imposed the geological structures instantaneously. Therefore, measurements by geologists do not prove that the earth is old, nor can they be used to argue against a young earth.
Reply: There is no evidence proof of halos in basement or primordial rocks, and likewise no evidence that halos arise only from the decay of polonium 218. Geologist Jeffrey Wakefield actually visited all of Gentry’s sample sites, in every case Gentry’s samples came not from primordial granites as he had claimed, but rather from young dikes (igneous rock infusions into vertical fissures) that crosscut older igneous and sedimentary rocks. The decay of Uranium or Thorium all have 7 or 8 alpha emitters! Since any alpha emitter can make halos, these other isotopes could be responsible.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - VIII
Sample Evidence G: Rapid sedimentation and peat deposition following the 1980 Mount Saint Helens eruption demonstrated that all geological processes are not gradual, but rapid.
Within a relatively brief period of time (a few months to a few years) following the violenteruption of Mt. St. Helens, peat layers (the first stage in the formation of Coal) and sedimentary rock already had formed in the vicinity of the volcano. This phenomenonseemed to young-earth creationists to challenge the notion that geologic layers are deposited according to gradual uniformitarian processes taking place over millions and hundreds of millions of years. They concluded that geological processes provide evidences for a young earth and not for an old earth.
Reply: The problem lies in the assumption that all geological processes either take place gradually at relatively uniform (i.e., constant) rates or rapidly at rates pulsed by major catastrophes. The young-earth versus old-earth debate is pictured in this context as a battle between the principles of uniformitarianism and the principles of catastrophism, with one significant twist. Catastrophism as defined by geologists refers to the formationof geologic structures through a variety of catastrophes occurring at different times. Young-earth creationists define catastrophism as the formation of all Earth’s major geologic structures by a single catastrophic event, namely the Genesis flood, occurring
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - IX
during a ten-and-a-half-month period five to fifteen thousand years ago. The use of theMount Saint Helens exemplifies the “either-or” fallacy (that is, it sets up an unfounded dilemma). Geology reflects the operation of both slow and rapid processes. Somegeological features can only be explained by gradual processes over millions of years, such as: coral atolls, anthracite coal and certain conglomerate and metamorphic layers. In the case of coral atolls, scientists can measure the daily accumulation of band-like deposits over millions of years. From these deposits they can make many determinations, including the rate of slowing of the earth’s rotation period. Such deposits establish that the earth’s rotation period has been slowing down at exactly the same rateover the last 400 million years.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - X
Sample Evidence H: Since computer models of the spiral structure of galaxies show that the spiral collapses after two or three rotations, spiral galaxies must be much younger than astronomers claim.
Isaac Newton’s laws of motion enable us to calculate with considerable precision thedynamics of large rotating systems of stars. When Kevin Prendergast made such calculations twenty-five years ago, he discovered that a large system of stars will establish a spiral structure only in a few rotations and that after two or three more rotations the structure will collapse into a sphere or an ellipsoid. Since we know that galaxies take only a few hundred million years to rotate, the existence of a significantnumber of spiral galaxies in the universe today, according to certain young-universecreationists, proves they cannot be as old as the 9 to 15 billion years that astronomers claim. Instead, they must be less than 2 billion years old. If they are less than 2 billion years old, then astronomers cannot be trusted in their age calculations, and perhaps the universe is only thousands of years old.
Reply: The argument based upon evidence H overlooks the continuing research byPrendergast and others. In the years following his initial computer modeling efforts, Prendergast discovered that ongoing star formation stabilizes the spiral structure. Specifically, he demonstrated that as long as new stars continue to form at a significant
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - XI
rate within a galaxy, the spiral structure will be maintained. But as soon as star formation ceases, the spiral structure will collapse within the next two or three rotations. Prendergast’s discovery beautifully dovetails with astronomers’ observations of galaxies. In spherical and ellipsoidal galaxies, astronomers see no evidence of ongoing star formation, whereas in the spiral galaxies such evidence is abundant. And, the farther away astronomers look (that is, the farther back in time they see), the more spiralgalaxies they observe. Since spiral galaxies still exist, the universe cannot be any olderthan about 25 billion years. Because only 6% of the galaxies near our own are spirals, the universe cannot be any younger than about 12 billion years.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - XII
Sample Evidence I: Trails of “human” footprints alongside, and sometimes crossing over, trails of dinosaur prints prove that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans.
The observation of a few footprints that appear to be human prints alongside a greatmany prints that were clearly made by dinosaurs has been interpreted by many young-earth creationists as proof that dinosaurs and men lived together. This fact would imply that the geological strata in which the prints were found could not have been deposited tens of millions of years ago but only in the last few thousand years. Thereforethe dinosaurs and the strata of the earth are not relics from the past but have existed only for about ten thousand years.
Reply: The first assumption that must be addressed is that prints in close proximity necessarily establish contemporaneous existence. This fact is false. The earth’s stratacan be disturbed and redisturbed by events occurring at different times, especially in a river bed like that at Glen Rose, Texas, where most of the “human” footprints have been found. But this faulty assumption is not the main defect of the argument from evidence I.The more serious problem lies in the identification of the prints as human. There are reasons to believe that these “human” prints were made by dinosaurs, their size, shape,features, etc. All indicate that these tracks were made by small dinosaurs, not “humans”.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - XIII
Sample Evidence J: Since a comet’s average lifespan is only a couple of thousand years, given the rather limited supply of comets, their present existence proves the solar system cannot be any older than a few thousand years.
Comets orbiting the solar system, such as Halley’s comet, are reported to disintegrate inabout two thousand years on the average. Every time a comet swings close by the sun,the heat and light of the sun boil away a significant portion of the comet’s mass. After afew dozen revolutions, none of the comet remains. Since comets are observed orbiting the sun, the solar system must be only a few thousand years old.
Reply: Estimates cited in evidence J for the average lifespan of a comets date back to the 1970s. At that time no space-based measurements of comets were available, andwhat data did exist was weighted heavily by easy-to-see comets. The easiest comets to see are those that pass closest to the sun, and these comets suffer the most rapid disintegration. Hence, estimates previous to 1980 of the average lifespans for comets have since proven to be far too low. In 1986 five space craft visited Halley’s comet andmade the first accurate measurements of both its mass and its rate of disintegration.Astronomers determined that Halley’s comet is massive enough to survive at least another 500 revolutions around the sun. With observations of Halley’s comet going backto 240 BC, and knowing that it passes the sun every seventy-six years, we can calculate
the approximate minimum lifespan for this comet at 40,000+ years. Halley’s comet is unusual in that it has such a short period of revolution. Much more typical are comets such as Kohoutek, which comes around the sun every 80,000 years, or Pons-Brooks and Griggs-Mellish, every 3,000,000 years. Five hundred revolutions for these comets wouldyield lifespans of 40 million and 1.5 billion years respectively.
Is There Scientific Evidence for a Young Universe? - IVX
A “Just Right” UniverseEvidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
1. Strong Nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
2. Weak Nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
3. Gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production
4. Electromagnetic force constant if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fission If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding; inadequate quantities of either carbon or oxygen
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: insufficient chemical bonding if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
7. Ratio of numbers of protons to electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
8. Expansion rate of the Universe if larger: no galaxy formation if smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation
9. Entropy level of the Universe if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
10. Baryon or nucleon density of the Universe if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
11. Velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous if slower: stars would not be luminous enough
12. Age of the Universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. Initial uniformity of radiation if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. Average distance between galaxies if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed
16. Average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
17. Decay rate of the proton if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
18. 12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio if larger: insufficient oxygen if smaller: insufficient carbon
19. Ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He) if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
20. Decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)[ 7 x 10-17sec] if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
21. Mass excess of the neutron over the proton [ n=1.67493 x 10-27kg, p=1.67262 x 10-27kg or n/p=1.00138] if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life if smaller: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes
22. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: too much radiation for planets to form if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
23. Polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life’s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
24. Supernovae eruptions if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets if too frequent: life on planet would be exterminated if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
25. White dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet
26. Ratio of exotic to ordinary matter if smaller: galaxies would not form if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form
27. Galaxy clusters if too dense: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt star and planet orbits; too much radiation if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas into galaxies to sustain star formation for a long enough time period
28. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe if smaller: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible
29. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
30. Mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. Big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe expands too rapidly if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense; black holes would dominate; universe collapses too quickly
32. Total mass density if smaller: universe would expand too quickly for solar type stars to form if larger: universe would expand too slowly, resulting in unstable orbits and too much radiation
33. Space energy density if smaller: universe would expand too slowly, resulting in unstable orbits and too much radiation if larger: universe would expand too quickly for solar type stars to form
34. Size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly if larger: certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly
35. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small; certain life-essential elements would be unstable; certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly if larger: certain life-essential elements would be unstable; certain life-essential chemical reactions would not function properly
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. Jer 10:12 It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His power; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.
Is 48:13 “ Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together”
Scriptures of Gods Creation - I
Scriptures of Gods Creation - IIIs 45:18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the Lord, and there is none else.”
Jer 33:25 “Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established,”
Is 40:22 It is He who sits above the vault of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Is 40:26 - 28 Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The one who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power Not one of them is missing. Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel, “My way is hidden from the Lord, And the justice due me escapes the notice of my God” Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
Scriptures of Gods Creation - III
Protons, Neutrons, electrons and Others
Protons are the building blocks of matter, and are very long lived!Neutrons are the combination of a proton and an electron, the Light negatively charged particle that is around the atom. The following are Nuclear reactions for the decay of a proton, and Neutrons in atoms with an excess of either particle.
N P+ + - + Energy Beta decay
P+ + e- N + Energy Electron capture
P+ N + + + Energy Positron decay
A positron is an example of “Exotic” matter, or anti-matter, and it is in a positive matter Universe!
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) – A new and Important Tool in Imaging Research
In the technique of positron Tomography, a positron emitting isotope Is included into a molecule that is incorporated into a chemical reaction.
The positron emitted during the decay of the isotope will analite with anElectron and emit two 511 kev gamma rays that can then be detected, and the location of the decaying isotope isolated accurately.
These radioisotopes can be incorporated into glucose moleculesand injected into the blood stream leading to the brain, where theglucose will be metabolized in the cells. The position of the glucose tells us where the glucose molecules was! In this way, We can obtain images of the Human Brain while it is functioning.
Glucose = C6H12O6
Positron Emission Tomograph
The Tomograph is aninstrument that is a ringof gamma ray detectors that react very fast togamma rays, and by measuring the time eachdetector receives the signalone can locate the point oforigin of the gamma ray to a precision of + 1 cm in ahuman being or any other physical object, with out any in vivo investigation. The detectors must have acapability of measuring up to + 250 ps per pulse.
_
_
Earth: The Place for LifeEvidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support (4)
1. Galaxy cluster type if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time2. Galaxy size if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time3. Galaxy Type if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available4. Galaxy location if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
5. Supernovae Eruptions if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
6. White dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient fluorine production if too late: fluorine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet
7. Proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed if closer: nebula would be blown apart
8. Timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption if earlier: nebula would be blown apart if later: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements
9. Parent star distance from center of galaxy if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits
10. Parent star distance from closest spiral arm if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great
11. Z-axis heights of star’s orbit if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life
12. Number of stars in the planetary system if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life
13. Parent star birth date if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements if less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements
14. Parent star age if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly
15. Parent star mass if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; UV radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen
16. Parent star metallicity if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations
17. Parent star color if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
Figure 12.3: Classification of electromagnetic radiation
18. H3 + production if too small: simple molecules essential to plant formation and life chemistry would not form if too large: planets would form at wrong time and place for life
19. Parent star luminosity relative to speciation if increases too soon: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
20. Planet’s surface gravity (escape velocity) if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water
21. Planet’s distance from parent star if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
22. Planet’s inclination of orbit if too great: temperature differences on planet would be too extreme
23. Planet’s orbital eccentricity if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme
24. Planet’s axial Tilt if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great if less: surface temperature differences would be too great
25. Planet’s rate of change of axial tilt if greater: climatic changes would be too extreme; surface temperature differences would become too extreme
26. Planet’s rotation period if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great
27. Planet’s rate of change in rotation period if longer: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained if shorter: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained
28. Planet age if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly if too old: planet would rotate too slowly
29. Planet’s magnetic field if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation
30. Planet’s thickness of crust if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great
31. Planet’s albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) if greater: runaway glaciation would develop if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
32. Planet’s asteroidal and cometary collision rate if greater: too many species would become extinct if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life
33. Mass of body colliding with primordial Earth if smaller: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small if greater: Earth’s orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed
34. Timing of body colliding with primordial Earth if earlier: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small if later: sun would be too luminous at epoch for advanced life
Continental Flood Basalts and Extinction EventsContinental Flood Basalts and Extinction Events
35. Collision location of body colliding with primordial Earth if too close to grazing: insufficient debris to form large moon; inadequate annihilation of Earth’s primordial atmosphere; inadequate transfer of heavy elements to Earth if too close to dead center: damage from collision would be too destructive for future life to exist
36. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
37. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
38. Water vapor level in Atmosphere if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land
39. Atmospheric electric discharge rate if greater: too much fire destruction would occur if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
The Greenhouse effect
The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Carbon Dioxide Increase in the Atmosphere at Mauna Loa Observatory, HawaiiYear CO2 Conc. Year CO2 Conc. Year CO2 Conc.
Carbon Dioxide record at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii 1971-2003
40. Ozone level in atmosphere if greater: surface temperatures would be too low if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface
41. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe
42. Seismic activity if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonates
43. Volcanic activity if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would become too degraded for life if higher: advanced life, at least, would be destroyed
44. Rate of decline in tectonic activity if slower: advanced life could never survive on the planet if faster: advanced life could never survive on the planet
The absorption spectra for Ozone and Molecular Oxygen. The region that is absorbed by molecular
Oxygen and Ozone are referred to as the UVA (100-240 nm) and the UVB (240-360 nm) region of the electromagnetic
Spectrum and are referred to as ionizing radiation.
UVAUVB
Plot of wavelength verses intensityof in coming solar radiation.
UVA and UVB are known as ionizing radiation and will destroy molecules!
UVA UVBVisible
Stratospheric Chemical reactions leading to Ozone Depletion - INormal Ozone production in the stratosphere and its absorption of Ultra violet. Ozone is made when Ultra Violet Light (UVA) is absorbed by molecular oxygen to create two oxygen atoms. If these oxygen atoms collide with molecular oxygen they react to form Ozone. The Ozone formed will absorb Ultra Violet light in theUVB wavelengths, thus absorbing most of the short wavelength UV light, which is also called ionizing radiation, and will destroy biological molecules.
O2 2 O h = 170-190 nm (UVA)
O + O2 O3
O3 O2 + O = h = 200-300 nm (UVB)
h
h
Stratospheric Chemical reactions leading to Ozone Depletion - IIIn 1971 Dr. Harold Johnson A professor at the University of California at Berkeley, calculated that the Nitrogen oxides produced by the Jet engines of the then proposed Super Sonic Transports (SST’s) would destroy much of the Ozone layer that protects us on the Earth’s surface from Ultra Violet light (both UVA ad UVB). The reactions he proposed are:
N2 + O2 2 NO =This symbol indicated heat energy
NO + O3 NO2 + O2 This reaction is very fast! Adding these last two reactions NO2 + O NO + O2 together and canceling out similar reactants gives the catalytic reaction! O3 + O 2 O2 This reaction shows Ozone destruction!The results of this research stopped the US from making an SST!
Chlorofluorocarbons (Freon’s)
Freon-11 CF2Cl2 : Freon-12 CFCl3
Stratospheric Reaction Chemistry:
CF2Cl2 CF2Cl + Cl
Cl + O3 O2 + ClO ClO + O O2 + Cl
O3 + O 2 O2
Catalytic Ozone destruction
.h
..
.
Ozone Levels over Antarctica, The Antarctic Ozone Hole
The Ozone Hole over Antarctica
Ozone and ClO
45. Rate of decline in volcanic activity if slower: advanced life could never survive on the planet if faster: advanced life could never survive on the planet
46. Oceans-to-continents ratio if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
47. Rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio if smaller: advanced life would lack the needed land mass area if greater: advanced life would be destroyed by radical changes
48. Global distribution of continents (for Earth) if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences would be too severe for advanced life
49. Frequency and extent of ice ages if smaller: insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleys produced for diverse and advanced life forms; insufficient mineral concentrations occur for diverse and advanced life if greater: planet inevitably experiences runaway freezing
Volcanic Activity - I
Volcanoes Usually produce large quantities of Sulfur Dioxide.This SO2 reacts to form acids which cause acid rain, which cancause rocks to weather (break down), these acids also have deleterious effects on vegetation.
SO2(g) + H2O(L) H2SO3(aq) Sulfurous acid (A weak acid)
2 SO2(g) + O2(g) 2 SO3(g)
SO3(g) + H2O(L) H2SO4(aq) Sulfuric acid (A strong acid)
Volcanoes also produce ash, along with the sulfuric acid, will formaerosols (particles) in the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight back into space, cooling the atmosphere.
The chemistry of volcanoes is such that many volcanoes also release Hydrochloric acid (HCl) or Hydrofluoric acid (HF) in large concentrations. For example the Hawaiian Volcanoes such as Kilauea, can release tons of HCl per hour during major eruptions.These acids have a huge impact on the dissolution of rocks and the releasing of many metals essential for life into the environment.
Hot spot volcanic activity is a unique type that has had a greatImpact on life forms on Earth, and has been going on for millions of years. Chains of Islands such as the Hawaiian Islands are formed by Hot spot volcanism. These volcanoes also produce a unique chemical signature, as they contain elements found in the core of the earth such as Iridium, Platinum, Osmium and Rhenium,Very rare on the surface of the earth.
Volcanic Activity - II
50. Soil mineralization if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
51. Gravitational interaction with a moon if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak
52. Jupiter distance if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth if less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable
53. Jupiter mass if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
54. Drift in major planet distances if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
55. Major planet eccentricities if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone
56. Major planet orbital instabilities if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone
57. Atmospheric pressure if too small: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently if too large: liquid water would not evaporate easily enough for land life; insufficient sunlight would reach planetary surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach planetary surface
58: Atmospheric transparency if smaller: insufficient range of wavelengths of solar radiation would reach planetary surface if greater: too broad a range of wavelengths of solar radiation would reach planetary surface
Plot of wavelength verses intensityof in coming solar radiation.
UVA and UVB are known as ionizing radiation and will destroy molecules!
UVA UVBVisible
59. Chlorine quantity in atmosphere if smaller: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be insufficient for most life forms if larger: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms
60. Iron quantity in oceans and soils if smaller: quantity and diversity of life would be too limited for support of advanced life; if very small, no life would be possible if larger: iron poisoning of at least advanced life would result
61. Tropospheric ozone quantity if smaller: insufficient cleaning of biochemical smogs would result if larger: respiratory failure of advanced animals, reduced crop yields, and destruction of ozone-sensitive species would result
62. Stratospheric ozone quantity if smaller: too much UV radiation would reach planet’s surface causing skin cancers and reduced plant growth if larger: too little uv radiation would reach planet’s surface causing reduced plant growth
63. Mesospheric ozone quantity if smaller: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere
64. Quantity and extent of forest and grass fires if smaller: growth inhibitors in the soils would accumulate; soil nitrification would be insufficient; insufficient charcoal production for adequate soil water retention and absorption of certain growth inhibitors if greater: too many plant and animal life forms would be destroyed
65. Quantity of soil sulfur if smaller: plants would become deficient in certain proteins and die if larger: plants would die from sulfur toxins; acidity of water and soil would become too great for life; nitrogen cycle would be disturbed
66. Biomass to comet infall ratio if smaller: greenhouse gases accumulate, triggering runaway surface temperature increase if larger: greenhouse gases decline, triggering a runaway freezing
Expected Population Growth in Adam’s Lifetime!
According to Genesis 5, life spans from Adam to Noah averaged 912 years. The population table is based upon the following assumptions:
Life span = 900 years, first child comes at age forty, childbearing years = 600 yrs, one child every four years during child bearing years.
Archeological evidence from the pre-flood era provides no indication that the pre-flood population ever became this large.Infant mortality and disease could be the reasons that the population stayed small.
Adam’s Reproducing Children Total Age Couples Born Population
The Flood – Global or Regional If the Flood covered the entire earth to a depth of the highest mountains, Mt. Everest (5.5 miles), the volume of water would be approximately 1.1 x 109 mi3 this is about 3 times the volume of the world’s oceans. Or approximately 730 ft of rain water per day (6.0 inches of rain per minute) would have had to fall for the 40 days and 40 nights as indicated in Genesis 7! The places Named in Genesis 1-9 are only around Mesopotamia so could it have been a regional flood? The failure of Man kind to spread though out the entire worldas God directed man Kind to do in Genesis 1:28 “ Be fruitful and Multiply, and fill the earth” brought certain changes. In Genesis 9:7 God repeats the command to multiply and fill the earth. In Genesis 1-9 the text mentions place-names only in Mesopotamia.Beginning in Genesis 10, we encounter names beyond Mesopotamia, indicating that Man kind was finally beginning to spread out over the earth.
The Flood - I1) Biblical phrases such as “under the entire heavens” and “the face of the earth” must be interpreted in the writer’s (and most readers’) context, as true where these terms are used elsewhere in Scripture.
2) The extent and spread of human population and, thus, of sin’s impact was limited, not global. In fact, God rebuked the human race for its failure to spread out over the globe.
3) Genesis mentions no geographical place-names beyond Greater Mesopotamia until chapter ten.
4) Earth’s water quantity supports a regional rather than global Flood. The floodwaters came from Earth’s underground and atmospheric resources, which are plentiful but inadequate to cover the globe.
The Flood - II
5) Mountain ranges and ocean basins cannot erode in forty days nor build up in eleven months, as would be required by one explanation of a global Flood, without leaving evidence easily visible today.
6) Not even an ark of steel armor plate could survive the rigors of a Flood gone global in forty days nor of the devastating effects of tens of thousands of feet of erosion in forty days and similar uplift within a year’s time.
7) The creatures earmarked for rescue included only Noah, Noah’s family, and birds and mammals that had significant contact with humanity.
8) Genesis 7 does not claim that water stood above the highest mountains; rather, it says that an enormous deluge fell upon or ran over or covered the highest hills visible to Noah.
9) Genesis 8:4 records that the ark landed in the mountains (or hills) of Ararat, not specifically on top of Mount Ararat itself. The designated area encompasses more than one hundred thousand square miles.
10) Olive leaves do not grow at high altitudes, nor could they survive a global Flood.
11) The water of a global Flood could not recede in less than a year.
The Flood - III
The Flood - IV12) A strong wind (Genesis 8:1) would be useful for dissipating a regional but not a global Flood.
13) Earth cannot possibly support at one time the half-billion or more species of life the fossil record documents, which would be required according to the global flood theory.
14) A recent global Flood cannot account for Earth’s enormous deposits of kerogen, topsoil, limestone, marble, and fossil fuels.
15) Petroleum products were available before the Flood for Noah’s use in sealing the ark (Genesis 6:14).
The Flood - V
16) The million-plus animal species on Earth today could not have evolved in just a few thousand years from the thirty thousand species-maximum- the ark could have carried.
17) No viable scientific evidence has ever been found for a recent, global Flood.
The Church and Science For many years there has been a growing split between “Science, and Scientists” and the “Church”, which for many years was the catholic church. It probably started with the Greek Philosopher Aristotle, who believed that every thing revolved around the earth. During this early time, science was the “Church”, and all scientists were part of the “Church”, and supported by the Church. When the astronomer Copernicus brought forth the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, and the earth was not the center of the Universe, there was a break between the Church and Modern science. I believe the split has it’s roots in this time period. With the advent of “Modern” science, we now have the “Big Bang”, or beginning of everything, and the expanding Universe.Beginning in 1966, George Ellis, Stephen Hawkings, and RodgerPenrose affirmed that any expanding universe governed by generalrelativity and which also contains at least some matter and energymust possess a singular origin in the finite past.
Reactions of Magnesium MetalMagnesium metal burning in Air!
2 Mg(s) + O2(g) 2 MgO(s) + Energy
Magnesium metal Burning with Carbon dioxide!
Mg(s) + CO2(g) MgO(s) + CO(g) + Energy
Magnesium Metal Burning with Dry Ice! (Solid Carbon Dioxide)
3 Mg(s) + CO2(s) 2 MgO(s) + MgC(s) + Energy
Biological Life – Extinction & Speciation
According to the fossil record, at least a half-billion to a Billion new species of life arose between the Cambrian Explosion (about 543 million years ago) and the arrival of human beings (about 30,000 to 50,000 years ago). This averages about one or two or more new species per year. Since the coming of humans, however, the rate of new species discovery has dropped to virtual zero! According to Biologists Paul and Ann Ehrlich, “The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented.” In other words, God rested form his creating on the seventh day, which we are still in! The extinction rate has remained constant at about one species per year during normal conditions, and more during years of environmental stress.
Figure 4.1: A space-filling model of the water molecule.
The Hexagonal Structure of Ice
Ice Structure with open holes givingIce a density less than water it’s self.
The delicate 6 point snow flakereflects the hexagonal structure.
3 Important Building Blocks of Nucleic Acids
• 1) A pentose sugar–In RNA the sugar is ribose, and in DNA it is deoxyribose, in which one hydroxy group has been replaced by a hydrogen.
• 3) A phosphate linkage derived from phosphoric acid
Pentoses
DNA
RNA
Bases found inDNAandRNA
Adenosine reaction
Figure 22.37: Nucleic acid chain
Figure 22.38: DNA double helix
The Spontaneous Formation of Life
During the 1970’s there was a very intense effort in the Chemical Sciences to show that life could be formed spontaneously fromChemicals assumed to be present on the primitive earth. Ammonia, methane, and water vapor were placed into containers along with different other things and sparked to simulate lighting,and then look for primitive amino acids the building blocks of life.
NH3 + CH4 + H2O + Energy Amino acids
[ H2NCH2COOH, Glycine]
Only simple amino acids were formed, and a few simple combinations of amino acids were formed after many years and hundreds of millions of research funds had been expended!
Odds of Making DNAWhat are the odds of making just one strand of DNA out of Random nucleotide combinations? This demonstration was made by Michael Heart in 1982 to show how improbable life formation was, even given the building blocks necessary to form DNA. 400 positions where any one of four nucleotide residues will do, and at each of 100 other positions where either of two nucleotide residues would be effective, leaving only 100 positions where the exactly correct nucleotide residue must be present. (This is a very optimistic set of circumstances!)
For this to occur, the odds are 1:1090, in 10 billion years, the chance of forming such a strand spontaneously would be 10-90 times 1060, or 10-30 for each of 100 different specific genes to beformed spontaneously (in 10 billion years) the probability is(10-30)100 = 10-3000 for them to be in close proximity it is worse!!
The Complexity of Biological life
The complexity of DNA and Biological molecules precludes that they could have been put together by chance!DNA and genes are so compact that all of the DNA and genes in a person’s body would fit into a cube the size of an ice cube!If all of the DNA in a person’s body were unraveled, and joined end to end, the strand would reach from the earth to the Sun and back more than 400 times!The DNA in a single cell is estimated to contain instructions, that if written out would fill a thousand 600 page books.Another book stated that all of the information stored in all of the books of the library of Congress could be stored in just one strand of a person’s DNA!
Damage to DNA, RNA, or Genes Damage to genetic material occurs from Radiation (x-rays, gamma-rays, Ultraviolet light, etc) or from Chemical mutagens. It involves the Destruction of the molecule, or the change it’s properties such as structure, polarity, or ionization.
Damage to DNA, or genetic material in the cells occurs all ofThe time, and the body has mechanisms to repair these damaged molecules, or to replace them with undamaged ones. The damaged molecules are recycled in to new ones, or ejected from the body in our waste. When a cell or genetic material is not capable of replication, or carrying on its function, it is recycled or removed from the body. Thousands of cells and molecules containing genetic information are destroyed each day in a normal human being. We are obviously wonderfully made, and designed to survive in difficult times and circumstances.
DNA and Dates for Common AncestorsStudies on the DNA of modern Humans have given us some information on the dates for Adam and Eve versus Noah.
A 1995 study revealed a date for the common ancestor of human males as: between 35,000 and 47,000 B.C.
Mitochondrial DNA yields the common ancestor of all women between a few thousand and tens of thousands of years earlier.
Of the eight people on Noah’s ark, the four men were blood related to Noah, but the four women were not, and Eve would be the most recent common ancestor for them.
The difference in the two biochemical dates roughly fits the time frame suggested by the Genesis 5 genealogy.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - I
1. Existence and temperature of the cosmic background radiation: Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman calculated in 1948 that cooling from a big bang creation event would yield a faint cosmic background radiation with a current temperature of roughly 5o Kelvin (-455oF). In 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected a cosmic background radiation and determined that its temperature was about 3o Kelvin (-457oF).2. Black body character of the cosmic background radiation: Deviations between the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation and the spectrum expected from a perfect radiator measured to be less than 0.03% over the entire range of observed wavelengths. The only possible explanation for such an extremely close fit is that the entire universe must have expanded from an infinitely or nearly infinitely hot and compact beginning.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - II3. Cooling rate of the cosmic background radiation: According to the big bang, the older, and hence more expanded, the universe becomes, the cooler will be the cosmic background radiation. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation at distances so great that we are looking back to when the universe was just a half, a quarter, or an eighth of its present age show temperature measurements that are hotter than the present 2.726oK by exactly the amount that the big bang theory would predict.4. Temperature uniformity of cosmic background: The temperature of the cosmic background radiation varies by no more than one part in ten thousand from one direction in the heavens to any other. Such high uniformity only can be explained if the background radiation arises from an extremely hot primordial creation event.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - III5. Ratio of photons to baryons in the universe: The ratio of photons to baryons (protons and neutrons) in the universe exceeds 100,000,000 to 1. This proved the universe is so extremely entropic (efficient in radiating heat and light) the only possible explanation is that the entire universe must be rapidly exploding from an infinitely or near infinitely hot, dense state.6. Temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation: For galaxies and galaxy clusters to form out of a big bang creation event temperature fluctuations in maps of the cosmic background radiation should measure at a level of about one part in a hundred thousand. The predicted fluctuations were detected at the expected level.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - IV7. Power spectrum of the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation: For the big bang universe with a geometry suitable for the formation of stars and planets capable of supporting physical life, the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation will peak at an angular resolution close to one degree with a few much smaller spikes at at other resolutions. In other words, the power spectrum graph will look like a bell curve with a few sub-peaks to the side of the main peak. The Boomerang balloon experiment in April 2000 confirmed this big bang prediction.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - V8. Cosmic expansion rate: A big bang creation event implies a universal expansion o the universe from a beginning several billion years ago. The most careful measurements of the velocities of galaxies establish that such a cosmic expansion has been proceeding for the past 14.9 billion years, a cosmic age measure that is consistent with all other cosmic age measurements.9. Stable orbits of stars and planets: Our universe manifests stable orbits of planets about stars and stars about the nuclei of galaxies. Such stable orbits are physically impossible unless the universe is comprised of three very large and rapidly expanding dimensions of space.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - VI10. Existence of life and humans: Life and humans require a stable solar-type star. However: If the universe cools down too slowly, galaxies would trap radiation so effectively as to prevent any fragmentation into stars. If the universe cools too rapidly, no galaxies or stars will ever condense out of the cosmic gas. If the universe expands too slowly, the universe will collapse before solar-type stars reach their stable burning phase. If it expands too rapidly, no galaxies or stars will ever condense from the general expansion.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - VII11. Abundance of helium in the universe: According to the big bang, almost exactly one-forth the first four minutes following the cosmic creation event. Stellar burning provides the only other possible source of helium. Therefore, astronomers can test the big bang by measuring the helium abundance in gas clouds and galaxies where little or no star burning has taken place. When they do this they determine a primordial helium abundance = 0.2489 +/- 0.0015, a nearly perfect fit with what the big bang predicts.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - VIII12. Abundance of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) in the universe: Only the big bang can produce deuterium. Stars, on the other hand, destroy deuterium. By measuring the deuterium abundance in gas clouds and galaxies where little or no star burning has occurred, astronomers can not only prove that we live in a big bang universe but also determine what kind of big bang the universe manifests. The measured results are consistent with the same kind of big bang demonstrated by all the other big bang tests.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - IX13. Abundance of lithium in the universe: Only the big bang can produce lithium. Stars destroy lithium. By measuring the lithium abundance in gas clouds and galaxies where little or no star burning has occurred, astronomers cannot only prove that we live in a big bang universe but also determine what kind of big bang the universe manifests. The measured results are consistent with the same kind of big bang demonstrated by all the other big bang tests.14. Evidences for general relativity: Recent measurements now elevate the theory of general relativity to the most exhaustively tested and best proven principle in all of physics. The solution to the equations of general relativity demonstrate that the universe must be expanding from a beginning in the finite past.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - X15. Space-time theorem of general relativity: A mathematical theorem proven by Stephen hawking and Roger Penrose in 1970 establishes that if the universe contains mass, and if its dynamics are governed by general relativity, then time itself must be finite and must have been created when the universe was created. Also, there must exist a CAUSE responsible for bringing the universe (which must be expanding) into existence independent of matter, energy, and all ten of the cosmic space-time dimensions.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XI16. Space energy density measurements: Albert Einstein and Arthur Eddington both developed cosmological models without a big bang by altering the theory of relativity to include a cosmic space energy density term (a.k.a. the cosmological constant) and assigning a particular value to that term. Recently, astronomers determined that indeed a cosmic space energy term does exist. Its value, however, proves that Einstein’s and Eddingion’s models are incorrect. The measured value actually increases the evidence for the big bang in that it establishes the universe will continue to expand to an ever increasing rate.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XII17. Ten-dimensional creation calculation: A team led by Andrew Strominger demonstrated that only in a universe framed in ten space-time dimensions where six of the ten dimensions stop expanding when the universe is a 10 millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old is it possible to have gravity and quantum mechanics coexist. This demonstration also successfully predicted both special and general relativity and solved a number of outstanding problems in both particle physics and black hole physics. It implies that the big bang and the laws of physics are valid all the way back to the creation event itself.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XIII18. Steller ages: According to the big bang theory, different types of stars will form at different epochs after creation. The colors and surface temperatures of stars tells astronomers how long they have been burning. These measured burning times are consistent with the big bang. They also are consistent with all other methods for measuring the time back to the cosmic creation event.19. Galaxy ages: According to the big bang theory, nearly all the galaxies in the universe will form early in its history within about a 4-billion year window of time. Indeed, astronomers measure the galaxies to have the predicted ages.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XIV20. Decrease in galaxy crowding: The big bang predicts that galaxies will spread farther and farther apart from one another as the universe expands. Hubble Space Telescope images show that the farther away in the cosmos one looks (and, because of light’s finite velocity, the farther back in time) the more crowded together are the galaxies. In fact, looking back to when the universe was but a third of its present age, the Space Telescope images reveal galaxies so tightly packed together that they literally are ripping spiral arms away from one another.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XV21. Photo album history of the universe: Since the big bang predicts that nearly all the galaxies will form at about the same time, and since galaxies change their appearance significantly as they age, images of portions of the universe at progressively greater and greater distances (and, because of light’s finite velocity, farther and farther back in time) should show dramatic changes in the appearances of the galaxies. Hubble Space Telescope images verify the predicted changes in the appearances of galaxies.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XVI22. Ratio of ordinary matter to exotic matter: In the big bang universe, for the galaxies and stars to form and develop so that a site suitable for the support of physical life will be possible, the cosmos must exhibit a ratio of exotic matter (matter that does not interact well with radiation) to ordinary matter (matter that strongly interacts with radiation) that measures roughly five or six to one. Recent measurements reveal just such a ratio for the universe.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XVII23. Abundance of beryllium and boron in elderly stars: Long before the first stars can possibly form, the big bang fire-ball during the first few minutes after the creation event will generate tiny amounts of boron and beryllium if, and only if, the universe contains a significant amount of exotic matter. Astronomers have confirmed that primordial boron and beryllium exists in the amounts predicted by the big bang theory and their measurements of the amount of exotic matter.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XVIII24. Numbers of Population I, II, and III stars: The big bang predicts that as the universe expands it will produce three distinct populations of stars. At its current age the big bang also predicts that astronomers should see certain specific numbers and masses of the three different populations. Astronomers do indeed see the predicted numbers and masses of stars for the three different populations.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XIX25. Population, locations, and types of black holes and neutron stars: A big bang universe of the type that makes possible a site suitable for the support of physical life will after many billions of years of star burning produce a relatively small population of stellar mass black holes and a somewhat larger population of neutron stars in virtually every galaxy. Large galaxies are expected to produce supermassive (exceeding a million solar masses) black holes in their central cores. Astronomers, indeed, observe the predicted populations, locations, and types of black holes and neutron stars.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XX26. Dispersion of star clusters and galaxy clusters: The big bang predicts that as the universe expands different types of star clusters and galaxy clusters will disperse at specific rates that will increase with time. It also predicts that the densest star clusters will not disperse. However, the orbital velocities of their stars about the cluster’s center will “evolve” toward a predictable randomized condition known as virialization. The virial times depend on the cluster mass and size and on the individual masses of the stars. Astronomers observe the dispersal rates and virial times predicted by the big bang.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XXI27. Number and type of space-time dimensions: A big bang universe of the type that makes possible a site suitable for the support of physical life must begin within ten rapidly expanding space-time dimensions. At about 10-43 seconds (about a ten millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) after the creation event six of the ten dimensions must cease expanding while the other four continue to expand at a rapid rate. Several experiments and calculations confirm that we live in such a universe.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XXII28. Masses and flavors of neutrinos: All currently viable big bang models require that the dominant form of matter in the universe be a form of exotic matter called “cold dark matter”. Astronomers and physicists already know that neutrinos are very plentiful in the universe and that they are “cold” and “dark”. Recent experiments establish that neutrinos oscillate (that is, transform) from one flavor or type to another (the three neutrino flavors are electron, muon, and tau). This oscillation implies that a neutrino particle must have a mass between a few billionths and a millionth of an electron mass. Such a range of masses for the neutrino satisfies the requirement for the viable big bang models.
Scientific Evidence for A “Big Bang” Creation Event - XXIII29. Populations and types of fundamental particles: In the big bang the rapid cooling of the universe from a near infinitely high temperature and a near infinitely dense state will generate a zoo of different fundamental particles of predictable properties and predictable populations. Particle accelerator experiments which duplicate the temperature and density conditions of the early universe have verified all the types and populations of particles predicted within the energy limits of the particle accelerators.30 Cosmic density of protons and neutrons: Four independent methods for determining the density of protons and neutrons in the universe establish that the density measured is the same as what the big bang predicts for a universe that contains the stars and planets necessary for life.
The Star Declaring the Birth of Jesus
The star declaring the birth of Jesus was most assuredly a super Novae explosion!
