Transcript What Do We Really Know About the Universe?

WHAT DO WE
REALLY KNOW
ABOUT THE
UNIVERSE?
By David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.
Email [email protected]
?
?
HOW DO YOU
?
KNOW WHAT
YOU KNOW?
Or at least what you think you know?
?
?
?
WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK:
Evolution is science...
Creation and
Intelligent Design
are religion.
EVOLUTION:
Initial Disorganization
with later increase in complexity and
unlimited diversification.
Not just change, but change in the
direction of increasing complexity.
Simple to Complex.
T
I
M
E
Evolutionary “Tree”
All life came from one simple cell
CREATION:
Initial Complexity
with later deterioration and
diversification within limits.
Not just change, but change in the
direction of decreasing complexity.
Complex to Simple.
T
I
M
E
Creationist “Forest”
All life came from multiple complex ancestors.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING?
1. Personal Experience
through the five senses.
I know a bee sting hurts;
I know how to ride a bike.
3. Logic.
I know 2 million + 2 million =
4 million, even though I’ve
never counted that high.
I know I have a brain, even
though I’ve never seen it.
5. Wishful Thinking (you
really want it to be true)
I just know I’m going to
win the lottery!
2. Reliance on Authority.
I know the sun is 93
million miles away;
Jesus loves me, this I know,
for the Bible tells me so.
4. Feeling or Intuition.
I know she’s the one for
me; I know God has called
me to the ministry.
6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade
others for an ulterior motive.
You should buy these tickets from me
because I know this team is going
to the Super Bowl this year;
I know this car will give you years
of faithful service!
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. Define the problem. What do you want to know?
(E.g. “Does music affect how plants grow?”)
2. Gather information about the subject.
(AUTHORITY)
3. Formulate a hypothesis.
4. Devise a way to test the hypothesis.
5. Observe the results of the test. (EXPERIENCE)
6. Draw a conclusion (INDUCTIVE LOGIC) and report
your results so others can repeat the test.
REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO
PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW”
IS IT BECAUSE:
(1) They claim to have personal experience, OR
(2) They appeal to an authority we trust, OR
(3) We have checked out their logic and
found it trustworthy?
OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition,
(5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing?
Present +
Repeatable +
Observable
= SCIENCE
Past +
Non-Repeatable +
Eyewitness Account
= HISTORY
Past +
Non-Repeatable +
No Eyewitnesses
= BELIEF
THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE:
1. No living person has personal experience.
2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the
Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics.
SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING?
Through LOGIC ONLY.
THE TWO TYPES OF LOGIC
1. INDUCTIVE.
Look at many phenomena and try to discover a
pattern that points to a general principle.
Inductive logic tries to determine the most
reasonable (most likely) conclusion.
This is the heart of the scientific method.
2. DEDUCTIVE.
Start with general principles accepted as true
and apply them to specific cases.
Deductive logic tries to establish absolute
truth, i.e., the conclusion MUST be true.
“SCIENCE” UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES:
Based on the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks,
who believed that logic always leads to truth.
Testing was unimportant to them.
Most famous Greek philosopher:
Aristotle (inventor of the logic still used today),
whose ideas were taught as fact for about
2,000 years throughout Europe,
west Asia, and Africa.
EXAMPLES OF INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS
BASED ON FAULTY LOGIC
“Scientific” ideas of Aristotle TAUGHT AS FACT in
European Universities for 2000 YEARS:
1. The earth is the center of the solar system.
Falsified by Copernicus.
2. Heavier objects fall faster.
Falsified by Galileo.
3. All objects possess an innate tendency to
come to rest.
Falsified by Newton.
“PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT”
Honest scientists will not claim to have
absolutely proven ANYTHING (even the Law
of Gravity!) using the scientific method.
All we can legitimately say is that every
time we have observed something in
the past it’s always worked the same
way, so we expect that it will continue
to work the same way in the future.
CONTRASTING LOGIC
The conclusions of INDUCTIVE logic result
from examination of observable phenomena
(a posteriori). They are testable and open to
modification.
The premises of DEDUCTIVE logic may come
from inductive conclusions, or they may
just be statements accepted as
self-evident (a priori). They are
not necessarily the result of testing.
THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE:
There is no way to repeat the beginning of the
universe. We have to look at circumstantial
evidence to see what seems to be the most
reasonable explanation.
Anyone who claims to know absolutely what
happened is not following inductive logic; they
must be using DEDUCTIVE logic only.
But can there be problems with deductive logic?
CONVERSES IN LOGIC
If I am at Mount Everest,
then I am at the highest mountain in the world.
TRUE.
THE CONVERSE:
If I am at the highest mountain in the world,
then I am at Mount Everest.
ALSO TRUE.
A converse is reliable ONLY
if there is an exact one-to-one match
between the “If” and “Then” parts - a
biconditional (“if and only if”).
INVALID LOGIC
If I am at Victoria Falls,
then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world.
TRUE.
THE CONVERSE:
If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world,
then I am at Victoria Falls.
FALSE. (not reliable)
A converse is NOT reliable
if there is more than one possibility.
PROPER LOGIC FLOW
AT ONE OF THE
LARGEST WATERFALLS
IF AT VICTORIA
FALLS
IF AT NIAGARA
FALLS
IF AT KAIETEUR
FALLS
IF AT ANGEL
FALLS
IF AT OTHER
LARGE WATERFALL
The Invalid Logic of Evolutionary Exclusivism
If I am at Victoria Falls,
then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world.
TRUE.
THE CONVERSE:
If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world,
then I am at Victoria Falls.
FALSE. (not reliable)
If evolution is true, then the universe and life would exist.
TRUE.
THE CONVERSE:
If the universe and life exist, then evolution is true.
FALSE. (not reliable)
All teaching of “evolution only” in schools rests on the
invalid use of a logical converse.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSE
UNIVERSE EXISTS
ATHEISTIC
EVOLUTION
CORRECT
THEISTIC
EVOLUTION
CORRECT
SOMETHING
ELSE CORRECT
YOUNG-EARTH
CREATION
CORRECT
OLD-EARTH
CREATION
CORRECT
DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND SYLLOGISMS
If P is true, then Q is true.
P is true.
Therefore, Q is true.
(Major premise)
(Minor premise)
(Conclusion)
live on earth
then Q
if P
To represent a syllogism
graphically, anything inside the
inner circle (“if”) is automatically
inside the outer circle (“then”).
live in U.S.
live in La.
if live in
New
Orleans
Syllogisms can also be
chained (transitive logic).
EVEN WITH CORRECT LOGIC, FALSE PREMISES
CAN LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS.
All dogs bark. (Or, “If an animal is a
dog, then it barks.”)
Fido is a dog.
Therefore, Fido barks.
Not
if
Fido
is
a
Basenji!
Basenjis
do
not
bark.
If any one of our premises is wrong,
then our conclusion is unreliable.
POSTULATES - Statements that are taken as
self-evident and accepted without proof.
Euclid’s Parallel Line Postulate says that for any line, there can
be only one parallel line through a point not on the first line.
Point not on the first line
Only one parallel line
First line
BUT IS IT REALLY SELF-EVIDENT?
Lobachevskyan and Riemannian geometry say that space is curved,
so there is no such thing as an infinitely long straight line in the
sense that we understand “straight.”
One says space is negatively
curved so that there are an
infinite number of parallel lines
through a point not on a line.
The other says space is
positively curved so there are no
parallel lines. All lines
intersect at infinity.
EACH OF THE THREE IS THE BASIS OF A DIFFERENT
VERSION OF GEOMETRY, BUT NONE CAN BE PROVEN.
BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION
EVOLUTION:
CREATION:
1. Everything must be explainable by purely
natural processes.
a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God.
b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang,
God’s involvement with nature has
been trivial.
1. A supernatural intelligence created the
universe. Though most things are
explainable by natural processes, some
things may not be.
Known as either NATURALISM,
MATERIALISM, OR ATHEISM.
This is as far as Intelligent Design goes.
(The intelligence could be the Flying
Spaghetti Monster!) Creation specifies
that the intelligence is God.
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN
BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.
MATERIALISM: NO GOD ALLOWED!
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of
some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance
of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our
a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, The New York Review, Jan. 1997
NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS
GOD
1. Only seen by what He does INVISIBLE.
2. Established natural laws, so
is not subject to those laws SUPERNATURAL.
3. Preceded the universe ETERNAL.
4. Influence extends throughout
the universe - OMNIPRESENT.
5. Directly or indirectly responsible for everything that has ever
happened - OMNIPOTENT.
6. Nobody made Him - SELFEXISTENT.
IF THERE IS NO GOD, THEN WHAT?
What if there is no God? Then the universe would
have to be the result of a series of forces,
processes, and events operating with no
particular purpose for billions of years.
We could call the whole series “evolution,”
“quantum fluctuation,” or “accident.” Let’s use
the term “Random Chance,” with the
understanding that it represents the whole
multibillion year series of forces, processes, and
events.
Let’s see the characteristics that Random Chance
would have to have.
NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS
GOD
RANDOM CHANCE
1. Only seen by what He does INVISIBLE.
2. Established natural laws, so
is not subject to those laws SUPERNATURAL.
3. Preceded the universe ETERNAL.
4. Influence extends throughout
the universe - OMNIPRESENT.
5. Directly or indirectly responsible for everything that has ever
happened - OMNIPOTENT.
6. Nobody made Him - SELFEXISTENT.
1. Only seen by what it does INVISIBLE.
2. Established natural laws, so
is not subject to those laws SUPERNATURAL.
3. Preceded the universe ETERNAL.
4. Influence extends throughout
the universe - OMNIPRESENT.
5. Directly or indirectly responsible for everything that has ever
happened - OMNIPOTENT.
6. Nobody made it - SELFEXISTENT.
There is no possibility that some Godlike entity does NOT exist.
IS ALL TRUTH SCIENTIFICALLY
PROVABLE?
Okay, prove scientifically that you love your
husband / wife / mother etc.
Likewise, our inability to prove there is a God
does not mean He does not exist;
our inability to prove there is not a God does
not mean He does exist.
WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK:
Evolution is science...
Creation and
Intelligent Design
are religion.
But in what way is believing in the
IMPOSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design
any more scientific than believing in the
POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design?
Either way it’s a matter of philosophy, not science.
BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION
EVOLUTION:
CREATION:
1. Everything must be explainable by purely
natural processes.
a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God.
b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang,
God’s involvement with nature has
been trivial.
2. Since there could be no other natural
processes besides evolution, evolution
is the only possibility.
1. A supernatural intelligence created the
universe. Though most things are
explainable by natural processes, some
things may not be.
2. God is powerful enough to use any
method he chooses, including
instantaneous creation.
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN
BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.
EVOLUTION: Natural Processes Only!
“... the theory of evolution itself [is] a theory
universally accepted not because it can be
proved by logically coherent evidence to
be true but because the only alternative,
special creation, is clearly incredible.”
D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p.233
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent
designer, such a hypothesis is excluded
from science because it is not naturalistic."
Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature
magazine, Sept. 1999
How many non-barking dogs does it take
to show that maybe Fido doesn’t bark?
This is why materialists fight so hard against
Intelligent Design. If there is even one thing
that can’t be explained by natural processes,
then their fundamental premise is false!
BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION
EVOLUTION:
CREATION:
1. Everything must be explainable by purely
natural processes.
a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God.
b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang,
God’s involvement with nature has
been trivial.
2. Since there could be no other natural
processes besides evolution, evolution
is the only possibility.
1. A supernatural intelligence created the
universe. Though most things are
explainable by natural processes, some
things may not be.
3. Since evolution has never been seen in
human history, it must be very slow. The
universe and earth have to be billions of
years old.
3. Creation does not automatically require
a specific age.
a. Recent Creation: The earth is probably less than 10,000 years old.
b. Gap Theory & Progressive Creation:
Because evolutionists must know
what they are talking about, the earth
has to be billions of years old.
2. God is powerful enough to use any
method he chooses, including
instantaneous creation.
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN
BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.
BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION
EVOLUTION:
CREATION:
4. Because a worldwide flood would cut
billions of years off the time needed to
produce the fossil record, there can
never have been a worldwide flood.
4. The Flood.
a. Recent Creation: One worldwide
flood.
b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods.
c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide
flood.
5. Similarities between living things
belonging to different kinds are due to
common design.
5. Similarities between living things are
due to common ancestry or chance.
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN
BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.
DO SIMILARITIES
SHOW COMMON
ANCESTRY?
BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION
EVOLUTION:
CREATION:
4. Because a worldwide flood would cut
billions of years off the time needed to
produce the fossil record, there can
never have been a worldwide flood.
4. The Flood.
a. Recent Creation: One worldwide
flood.
b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods.
c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide
flood.
5. Similarities between living things
belonging to different kinds are due to
common design.
6. Authority.
a. Recent Creation: The Bible is the final
authority in everything.
b. Gap Theory: The Bible is the final authority on most things, except the age
of the earth and the origin of death.
c. Progressive Creation: The Bible is the
final authority only on some spiritual
matters.
5. Similarities between living things are
due to common ancestry or chance.
6. Scientists are the final authority in
everything. Which scientists? The ones
that agree with you! (At least until they
change their minds next week.)
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN
BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.
So, back to our first
question:
WHAT DO WE
REALLY KNOW
ABOUT THE
UNIVERSE?
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. Define the problem. What do you want to know?
(E.g. “Does music affect how plants grow?”)
2. Gather information about the subject.
(AUTHORITY)
3. Formulate a hypothesis.
4. Devise a way to test the hypothesis.
5. Observe the results of the test. (EXPERIENCE)
6. Draw a conclusion (INDUCTIVE LOGIC) and report
your results so others can repeat the test.
Things to Which We Can Directly
Apply the Scientific Method:
Phenomena we can directly observe and test.
• Chemical composition or magnetic fields of bodies in the solar
system. We can analyze either by close flybys or actual
landings.
• Positions and motions of planets, moons, etc. – direct
telescope observation.
• Radiation output, etc. – direct measurements.
• Distance to stars up to about 50 light years away – calculated
by parallax.
• Chemical composition of the photosphere of sun and stars –
spectroscopic analysis.
SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS
Each element’s unique arrangement of electrons produces a
pattern (spectrum) of colored lines as its electrons jump
between higher and lower energy levels. Lines are bright as
the electrons emit energy or dark as they absorb it.
Above: Black and white graph of the spectrum of hydrogen.
Below: Emission spectra of three common elements showing colors.
Emission spectrum of Hydrogen
Emission spectrum of Fluorine
Emission spectrum of Oxygen
HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT’S IN A STAR?
• In a laboratory, we see an emission
spectrum of bright lines against a
dark background.
• However, the interior of a star is so hot that the electrons are
knocked completely away from the atoms. (This is called a
plasma.) The star’s light is NOT from electrons jumping between
specific energy levels, so it is a continuous white light.
• Light from the interior must pass through the star’s outer regions
(its photosphere) on its way to us. This part of the star is not as
hot, so some of the atoms do have electrons.
• These electrons absorb specific colors as they move to higher
energy levels.
• What we see on earth is like a photographic negative. Instead of an
emission spectrum of bright lines
against a dark background, we see an absorption spectrum of
dark lines against a bright background. This enables us to identify
elements present in the star’s outer layers.
Things We Cannot Legitimately be
as Confident About:
Phenomena for which we have indirect data,
but we cannot directly observe and test.
• Interior structure of stars and planets. Since we cannot directly see
inside we devise models. However, we must recognize that the
models may need to be revised.
• Meaning of anomalous red shifts. We directly measure the shifts,
but we must then interpret what they mean. Are all red shifts due to
linear motion? Could gravitational / relativistic red shifts be
involved?
• Presence of planets around distant stars. We measure a tiny
amount of “wobble” in the starlight, which we then interpret to
mean that an orbiting object is pulling the star. Are there other
possibilities?
Possible Explanations for “Wobble” of Starlight
Red Shift Varies
PLANET
IN ORBIT
BROWN
DWARF IN
ORBIT
UNKNOWN
FACTORS
MEASUREMENT
ERRORS
PULSATION
OF STAR
Can we be absolutely certain?
THINGS WE CANNOT TEST
(Deductive Logic Only):
Phenomena we cannot directly observe, for which
we devise models that we also cannot directly test.
• Origin of the matter and energy that comprise the
universe
• Underlying geometry of the universe
• Age of the universe
• Mechanisms involved in a Big Bang
• Mechanisms of galaxy and cluster formation
• Origin of the solar system and its parts
Origin of the Elements
1
2
H
He
HYDROGEN
1
3
4
5
LITHIUM
7
11
BERYLLIUM
9
12
BORON
11
13
Li Be
Na Mg
SODIUM
23
19
MAGNESIUM
24
20
21
6
7
CARBON
12
14
NITROGEN
14
15
B C
N
8
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
SILICON
28
32
9
O F Ne
OXYGEN
16
16
Al Si P
ALUMINUM
27
31
HELIUM
4
10
FLUORINE
19
17
NEON
20
18
S Cl Ar
PHOSPHOROUS SULPHUR
31
32
33
34
CHLORINE
35
35
ARGON
40
36
K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
POTASSIUM
39
37
CALCIUM
40
38
SCANDIUM
45
39
TITANIUM
48
40
VANADIUM
51
41
CHROMIUM
51
42
MANGANESE IRON
55
56
43
44
COBALT
58
45
NICKEL
59
46
COPPER
64
47
ZINC
65
48
GALLIUM
70
49
GERMANIUM ARSENIC
73
75
50
51
SELENIUM
79
52
BROMINE
80
53
KRYPTON
84
54
Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
RUBIDIUM
85
55
STRONTIUM
88
56
Cs Ba
CESIUM
133
87
BARIUM
137
88
YTTRIUM
89
La-Lu
57- 71
ZIRCONIUM
91
72
NIOBIUM
93
73
MOLYBDENUM TECHNETIUM RUTHENIUM RHODIUM
96
99
101
103
74
75
76
77
PALLADIUM SILVER
106
108
78
79
RADIUM
226
INDIUM
115
81
TIN
119
82
ANTIMONY TELLURIUM IODINE
122
126
127
83
84
85
XENON
131
86
Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
HAFNIUM
178
104
TANTALUM
181
105
TUNGSTEN
184
106
RHENIUM
186
107
OSMIUM
190
108
IRIDIUM
192
109
PLATINUM
195
Ac-Lr
Fr Ra 89-103
Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt
FRANCIUM
223
CADMIUM
112
80
RUTHERFORD- DUBNIUM
IUM 261
262
GOLD
197
MERCURY
201
THALLIUM
204
LEAD
65
66
67
207
BISMUTH
209
POLONIUM
210
ASTATINE
219
RADON
222
etc.
SEABORGIUM BOHRIUM
263
264
HASSIUM
265
MEITNERIUM
268
58
59
61
CERIUM
140
90
PRASEODYM- NEODYMIUM PROMETHEUM SAMARIUM EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM TERBIUM
IUM 141
144
147
147
152
157
159
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
57
La
LANTHANUM
139
89
Ac
ACTINIUM
227
60
62
63
64
68
69
70
71
THULIUM
169
101
YTTERBIUM
LUTETIUM
173
175
102
103
Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho E Tm Yb Lu
DYSPROSIUM HOLMIUM
ERBIUM
162
165
167
98
99
100
Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr
THORIUM
232
PROTACTINIUM
231
URANIUM
238
NEPTUNIUM PLUTONIUM
237
244
AMERICIUM
243
CURIUM
247
BERKELIUM
247
CALIFORNIUM EINSTEINIUM FERMIUM
251
252
257
MENDELEVIUM 258
NOBELIUM LAWRENCIUM
259
260
90 elements are known to occur on earth. Elements 43, 61, and 93 and above (shown in
red) are known only in artificially manufactured form, though #43 is seen in some stars.
We need to explain the origin of the 90 naturally occurring elements.
Naturally Occurring Isotopes
Name of Isotope Atomic Number Mass Number Protons Neutrons
hydrogen-1
hydrogen-2
hydrogen-3
helium-3
helium-4
NONEXISTENT
lithium-6
lithium-7
NONEXISTENT
beryllium-9
boron-10
boron-11
carbon-12
carbon-13
carbon-14
nitrogen-14
nitrogen-15
oxygen-16
oxygen-17
oxygen-18
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
15
16
17
18
etc.
1
1
1
2
2
0
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
5
5
6
6
7
8
7
8
8
9
10
A Big Bang could not produce any element heavier than Lithium.
WHY SUCH A BIG DEAL?
Somewhere around 99% of the observed matter in the
universe consists of H-1 and He-4. There are only a
few possible ways to combine two of these atoms.
• Two H-1 nuclei (two protons) cannot stay together
without the presence of at least one neutron. (There
is no such thing as He-2.) Even then, He-3 comprises
only 0.000138% of the Helium known.
• A H-1 and He-4 nucleus together would have mass 5.
Oops, it doesn’t exist either.
• Two He-4 nuclei would have a mass of 8, but that
doesn’t exist either.
A Big Bang would have expanded too fast to combine more
than two particles at a time, and there are no other combinations of two. We are blocked at every turn when
trying to make heavier elements out of the two
elements that would have been present in a Big Bang.
Problems with Synthesis of
Heavier Elements in Stars
Once all the hydrogen in the core of a star is used up, the
star is supposed to experience a “helium flash” in which
it suddenly fuses two helium nuclei into Be-8, three into
C-12 (“triple-alpha”), and four into O-16.
THREE PROBLEMS:
(1) Be-8 decays instantaneously and would be unavailable as
a building block for heavier elements.
(2) The process has never been seen. Even if it did occur, it
would be undetectable. There is no evidence that it has
ever happened. It is an a priori assumption needed for
materialistic evolution to be true.
(3) Atomic nuclei are so tiny that the chance is extraordinarily
small for two to collide, let alone three or four.
Problems with Synthesis of
Heavier Elements in Supernovae
Supernovae are believed to reach temperatures thousands
of times hotter than normal, high enough to synthesize the
rest of the elements. These elements are supposedly flung
into space, then recycled into new stars.
TWO PROBLEMS:
(1) The earliest stars should have been composed of nothing
but hydrogen and helium. However, we have never seen a
single metal-free star, even among the very “oldest” ones.
(2) Since gravity drops off by the square of the distance
between objects, it would be far too weak to pull the parts
back together into a new star. The material should just float
through space. No evidence here either - just a desire to
have materialistic evolution be true!
IS EVOLUTION FALSIFIABLE?
The most fundamental assumption of evolution is that everything
must be explainable by purely natural processes.
But what if something can’t be explained by natural processes?
YES IT CAN!
We make up a story then use faulty logic to say,
“Because we can make up a story, therefore our story must be true.”
The Story of the Supernovae and the Elements
Once upon a time there was a big supernova. It produced many atoms of
heavy elements, but they were spreading throughout space. Then a
second supernova took place light-years away. The shock wave from the
second supernova traveled trillions of miles and pushed the expanding
cloud from the first supernova back together into a ball. It became a new
star that now had heavier elements. The process repeated over and over,
spreading heavy elements to every single star we’ve ever seen.
The End.
Do you believe that a shock wave from trillions of miles away can
make an expanding cloud collapse into a ball? Do you believe
every observable star in the universe would be affected?
The Origin of Fried Eggs
WAS
THERE A
COOK,
or...
did a supernova release
a burst of energy that
bounced off a satellite...
hitting a chicken that
exploded and
sent a superheated
egg sailing onto a plate?
OCCAM’S RAZOR:
“Entities Should Not Be
Multiplied Beyond Necessity.”
A principle of logic that can be paraphrased as,
“The simplest explanation
that fits all the facts
is usually the best.”
Not a hard and fast rule, but a good guideline. The
fewer stories you have to make up, the better.
(K.I.S.S.!)
A Priori Assumptions of
Materialistic Cosmology
1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural Processes.
a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God.
b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God has had little
involvement with nature.
2. The earth cannot occupy any special place in the universe.
(The Cosmological Principle)
3. In order to explain the earth’s apparent position somewhere
near the center of the universe, space must not be threedimensional. It is four-dimensional and curves back on itself.
4. Four-dimensional space has no center or edge. It is
unbounded.
5. Space is defined by the presence of matter. Where there is no
matter, there is no space.
None of these is provable. They are accepted as self-evident.
Classical Physics Euclidean Geometry
Relativity - NonEuclidean Geometry
•
•
B
B
•
A
According to classical physics,
if the universe expanded it did so
through three-dimensional space.
Points A and B move apart
through space.
A•
The universe does not expand
through 3-dimensional space
because the universe is space.
There is no “outside” because
“outside” indicates a place in space,
which does not exist past the edge
of the expanding universe. Space
expands, but points A and B keep
their same relative positions.
FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACE
Imagine a 2-dimensional ant trapped inside the surface
of a piece of paper. He has no concept of “up” or
“down.” Even if the paper is curved into a sphere, he
has no way to know it because he can only see
his immediate area.
Big Bang cosmology says that we are the ants, but we
don’t know it because we are trapped inside the 3dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional “hypersphere.”
Space is curved, but we can’t detect it.
UNBOUNDED SPACE
A 2-dimensional ant confined to the surface of a sphere could
never reach the center
or the edge because from
his perspective the
surface has no center
or edge. To him,
it is unbounded.
If space is a
hypersphere,
to its 3-D
never find the
because neither
would have to
4-dimensional
we are confined
surface. We can
center or the edge
exists. 4-D space
be unbounded.
THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE
No matter where the ant goes, things look pretty much the
same in any direction. There is no
referred frame
of reference.
Likewise, Big
Bang theory
assumes that
no matter where
in space we
go, things on a
large enough
scale will look
pretty much
the same in
any
direction.
This is philosophy,
not science. If
there is a preferred
frame of reference,
the big bang and some (not all!) parts of the theory
of relativity are wrong.
2 Types of Evidence Used
to Support the
BIG
BANG:
1. Red Shift of Starlight
2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB)
SO WHAT’S A “RED SHIFT”?
Reports of the universe expanding are based on colors
(wavelength) of light from stars shifted toward the red end of
the spectrum. Almost all astronomers interpret this as a
Doppler shift due to the stars moving away from us.
Actual wavelength of star’s light
Normal absorption spectrum
Seemingly stretched-out wavelength due to motion
away from us - exaggerated for purpose of illustration
“Red-Shifted”
absorption spectrum
Seemingly compressed wavelength due to motion
toward us - exaggerated for purpose of illustration
“Blue-Shifted”
absorption spectrum
Possible Explanations for Red Shifts
Red Shift Exists
DOPPLER
EFFECT
TRANSVERSE
EFFECT
UNKNOWN
FACTORS
GRAVITATIONAL
EFFECT
RELATIVISTIC
EFFECT
Would we even know how to interpret a Doppler shift
if space is four-dimensional?
QUASARS: A BIG LITTLE PROBLEM!
Quasars are extremely bright, but their rapid pulsation indicates that
they are relatively small. Because of their high red shifts, they are
believed to be among the most distant objects in the universe.
NASA photos of a quasar supposed to be 1.5 billion light years away
The Stefan-Boltzmann law says energy output is proportional to an
object’s surface area and the fourth power of the temperature.
There is no known way an object as small as a quasar could get
hot enough to be so bright if it is really billions of light years away.
Either we are wrong about the Stefan-Boltzmann law, derived from
observation, or else we are wrong about the meaning of red shifts
for at least these quasars. How can we be sure about the meaning
of red shifts for anything, then?
QUANTIZED RED SHIFTS
If the universe is the result of a Big Bang, then stars
and galaxies near us should have very low red
shifts, while those far away should have high shifts.
For objects in between, there should be
a continuous distribution of red shifts.
THERE IS NOT.
Red shifts occur in discrete intervals
calculated at about 72 km/sec.
Evolutionary astronomy has
no explanation for this phenomenon.
Some Intelligent Design advocates point out that
the quantization of red shifts would make sense if
the earth were near the center of a 3-dimensional
(non-Big Bang) universe.
QUANTIZED RED SHIFTS
10
However, an observer
near the center
would see red
shifts in discrete intervals.
The distribution
would look something like this:
Number of Galaxies
Number of Galaxies
If the universe expanded uniformly
through 3-dimensional
space, an observer not
near the center would
see a continuous
•
range of red shifts
determined by the
distance of each galaxy
emitting light. About 2 million light years
from the center, the distribution of red
shifts should look something like this:
10
5
0
5
0
62
64
66
68
Distance in M Light Years
•
62
64
66
68
Distance in M Light Years
This is exactly what we see.
It looks like the earth is near
the center of the universe!
A CHALLENGE TO MATERIALISM:
Come up with an alternate
explanation for the quantization
of red shifts.
2 Types of Evidence Used
to Support the
BIG
BANG:
1. Red Shift of Starlight
2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB)
Energy Level of the CMB
The present energy level of the CMB is
about 2.73 degrees above absolute zero.
• At the time of the Big Bang, theory says that the temperature
would have been billions of degrees. Matter and energy would
have been freely changing back and forth.
• As the fireball expanded, the matter and energy would have
cooled like the gases in a refrigerator.
• After 300,000 years matter and energy would have “decoupled”
so that the energy went right through matter without affecting it.
• The energy level of the radiation would have been about 3000K
at the time.
• In order to explain the change from 3000K to 2.73K, we have to
say that the energy was absorbed by the fabric of space as it
expanded.
This, too, requires expanding 4-dimensional space.
It is not possible in 3 dimensions.
Distribution of the CMB
Computer generated image of cosmic microwave background
radiation released by NASA in 1992 based on COBE data.
The image is deceptive. The “hot spots” are greatly
exaggerated due to computer manipulation. The CMB is
almost perfectly uniform, to within 30 parts per million.
A Possible Factor in the CMB:
Blackbody Radiation
Wavelength distribution of the CMB,
2.726 degrees above absolute zero. (Based on COBE data.)
Under laboratory conditions, such a distribution usually indicates
“blackbody radiation” caused by objects emitting energy at the same
rate they absorb it. Could space dust be contributing to the CMB?
INFLATIONARY MODEL
To account for the “Horizon Problem” – the discrepancy
between the smooth background radiation and the
“lumpy” distribution of matter -- many believe that there
was an inflationary period between 10-43 and 10-34 seconds after the Big Bang during which space expanded
at 1020 times the speed of light and lumps formed.
This is incompatible with the Law of Conservation of
Momentum and Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion. There is no
known physical cause for the expansion to speed up and
then slow down again -- only an a priori assumption
needed for the Big Bang to be correct.
Inflation is also insufficient to account for the amount of
clustering observed. With the amount of matter known in
the universe, it would take 60 billion years to reach the
present level. (Hence, the invention of “dark matter.”
COLD DARK MATTER
There is nowhere near the amount of matter
needed to pull together galaxies, galaxy
clusters, and so on.
In order to hold to materialistic Big Bang
cosmology, we have to believe that 90 to
99% of the matter in the universe is invisible.
As alternatives, some have proposed String
and Texture theories. These depend on the
existence of “Higgs Fields,” hypothetical
force fields that appear and disappear as
necessary to make the mathematics of a Big
Bang work.
Isn’t the Scientific Method supposed to
be based on OBSERVATION?
The Origin of Fried Eggs
WAS
THERE A
COOK,
or...
did a supernova release
a burst of energy that
bounced off a satellite...
hitting a chicken that
exploded and
sent a superheated
egg sailing onto a plate?
Conservation of Angular Momentum
Any rotating object possesses
momentum. As the object’s
speed of rotation decreases
lar momentum. As the
speed increases.
Suppose a galaxy
diameter, and rotating
If we move back through time
must have been smaller and
angular momentum from the
rotating faster and
after the Big Bang, it
faster than the
According to the
this is a physical
a property known as angular
diameter increases, its
in order to conserve angudiameter decreases, the
were only a billion miles in
at only one mile per hour.
toward the Big Bang, it
smaller. Since it had all its
beginning, it had to be
faster. At some point shortly
would have had to be rotating far
speed of light.
observations of physics,
impossibility.
PROBLEMS WITH “LITTLE BIG BANGS”
If there were several “little big bangs” that interacted with
each other, this could overcome the problems of conservation of linear momentum and angular momentum. However,
1. Each singularity would be the result of a quantum fluctuation. The results of such fluctuations should be random and
unpredictable. Yet we see the same types of matter and
energy everywhere we look throughout the universe.
2. The Big Bang says that there was nothing outside the explosion, not even space. Space is 4-dimensional. However,
“Little Big Bangs” would have occurred at many different
locations, meaning that space already existed before they
exploded. Space would have to be 3-dimensional.
3. We must discard the First Law of Thermodynamics over and
over, each time one of the smaller singularities appeared.
The Most Fundamental A Priori
Assumption of Materialistic Cosmology:
Everything must be explainable by purely
natural Processes.
But there are no KNOWN natural processes that might
have produced matter and energy, or that might have
caused the singularity to explode, or that might have
caused inflation, or that might have caused clustering,
etc.
We can choose to believe in unknown NATURAL
processes, or unknown NON-NATURAL processes.
Either way, it’s a step of faith!
HOW ABOUT THE SOLAR
SYSTEM?
Can we explain its origin by
known natural processes?
COMPOSITION OF THE PLANETS
The standard scenario for the origin of the sun and planets is
the collapse of a planetary disk. If this is the case, the chemical
composition should be similar throughout the solar system.
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Jupiter
Saturn
Mars
Uranus
Neptune
However, NASA space flights tell us that each planet is made of
a mix of elements different from all the rest and from the sun.
This is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.
ANGULAR MOMENTUM
The sun possesses 99% of the mass in the solar system, yet
the planets possess 98% of the angular momentum.
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Jupiter
Saturn
Mars
Uranus
Neptune
There is no known way that a rotating disk of gas and dusk
could distribute its angular momentum so unevenly.
This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.
ORBITS OF THE PLANETS
Each of the planets orbits the sun
in a different plane.
• Pluto, Mercury, and earth’s “twin,” Venus, are the
most inclined with respect to our own orbit.
• Venus rotates backward from the rest; Uranus rotates almost
perpendicular to its orbit.
• At least 11 moons orbit opposite their mother planet’s rotation.
• The moons of Uranus orbit almost perpendicular to the rest of
the solar system.
This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.
COULD THE PLANETS HAVE BEEN CAPTURED
BY THE SUN’S GRAVITY?
Suppose you had a turntable with a magnet
at the center and
nine individually adjustable
rotating rings.
Could you roll
a steel ball
bearing onto
the turntable
and get it to orbit by exactly
balancing the magnetic force with the
outward momentum?
MAGNET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Got one in orbit? Now
do it 8 more times,
one for each planet, without disturbing the
first ball.
Got your 9
planets in
place? Now
do it about 4
dozen more
times, one for
each moon. BUT
WAIT! You have to do it
in 3 dimensions, not two!
Even with all our technology, there is no way we could put together an
arrangement as complex as the solar system. Yet it is supposed to be
the product of Random Chance.
Back to our first question:
WHAT DO WE REALLY
KNOW ABOUT THE
UNIVERSE?
Not very much! Most of what we think we
know is deductive logic, based on a
priori assumptions.
Are you willing to examine your
assumptions to see if they make sense?