Skip to content

Scientists Marvel At Creation’s Perfection

June 8, 2012

Some of the Bible’s specific claims about the universe are that: *1. The universe had a beginning [Gen. 1:1]* [The moment of creation] required an adjustment not of one part in a thousand, not of one part in a trillion, but of one part in infinity. Creation was perfect.” George Greenstein, Astrophysicist. *2. All matter, space, and time had a beginning [Gen. 1:1] * *3. They came about through a high level of information. “We discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds…” Sir James Jeans, Physicist and mathematician “The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation…His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist. “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has moneyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Sir Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist. *4. The universe is expanding; it is expanding over a nothingness; and the earth is hanging on nothing [Job. * * 26:7].* “The laws of science…contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron…The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist “If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique and therefore special in God’s sight. Instead I shall say that what we have learned shows that it matters a great deal what happens to us.” James Trefil, physicist “Could it be that suddenly, without anybody’s looking for it, evidence [Anthropic Principle] had been found of some supernatural Agency at work in the world?…Was it possible that this Agency, out of concern for our existence, had stepped into the normally orderly workings of things and altered things to our benefit? Religious people would call it ‘God’.” George Greenstein, astrophysicist

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Like Craig, I choose not to believe in things that are unbelievable. Such as:

The idea that there was nothing, then nothing went “BANG!,” and then there was everything.

The idea that all that congealing nothingness then managed to organize itself into complex systems in the total absence of any physical property which would allow it to do.

The idea that all that self-organized nothingness spontaneously formed itself into self-contained systems with hundreds or even thousands of irreducibly complex and essential sub-systems operating in symbiosis, despite the fact that the odds of that are essentially zero-over-infinity.

That all that evermore complex nothingness came alive, despite the fact that Spontaneous Generation has been as thoroughly disproved as anything can be in science…

…and that it stayed alive…

…and reproduced…

…and turned itself into ever-better versions of itself despite the complete lack of any ability to create new and improved genetic data…

…and branched out into lots of different globs of hyper-organized nothingness that could only survive if a bunch of wildly different types came alive at the same moment in the same location.

But what do I know? I’m just a guy who prefers to refrain from irrationality. Good thing people who reject the theistic religion never cause strife in the name of atheism… The two greatest mass murderers in human history (the atheists Stalin and Mao), are just figments of someone’s imagination, of course. Atheists would NEVER slaughter tens of millions of people in the name of THEIR religion… /sarc.

Craig Price in San Leon, Texas

None of us can remotely fathom a million years,(and so definitely not the many millions), and what can happen in that amount of time. We can’t even agree on what the constitution says and what the founders meant exactly and that was just over 200 yrs! Jesus was 2,000 yrs ago and the bible has been changed by Kings and etc since and we sure don’t know what the original intent of much of it was–See the old testament for some really loony and immoral stories, for instance.And not just loony and immoral to me, they will be to you, too, if you read ’em.

Stalin, Mao, and others were atheistic and did what you said. However, most will agree that both were psychopaths/sociopaths and that led to the slaughter.Their main purpose was not to convert/force people into being atheist. As opposed to the religious warriors who killed any”infidel”. Christian and Muslim alike. More people have been slaughtered/tortured in the name of some god than all of these guys could have ever done. When’s the last time you heard of somebody murdering people because he was an atheist? OK, now when’s the last time you heard of somebody killing people for his god? Was it yesterday? Thousands of examples. Atheists value life more than most religious folk as they KNOW this is the only life we get. –I know several atheist men and they are the most logical,(in their whole life), and moral people I konw. All of them are hard working family men with businesses and all of them are long married and have great kids. That just sounds impossible to you guys, right? Morals don’t come from the bible. Craig Price

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Craig,

As for, “None of us can remotely fathom a million years,(and so definitely not the many millions), and what can happen in that amount of time.” You are simply wrong. Even if the universe were billions of years old (it’s not) that doesn’t change the laws of physics that govern it. As just one example among dozens: the Earth and Moon are getting farther apart every year. It’s not much, but it’s enough to be measurable with modern equipment. Given the movement of two bodies in motion, straight-up Newtonian physics dictates that the Moon would have been INSIDE the Earth as recently as 1.3 billion years ago, and no amount of atheist wishful thinking can change that. I don’t know about you, but I actually do KNOW that the Moon was not inside the Earth 1.3 billion years ago – yet the atheist creation myth requires the Earth – Moon system to have been stable in its current form for three times longer than that. There are literally dozens of “anomalies” like that. Of course us simple religious folk know they are not anomalies at all – they only get that name because they disprove the atheist creation myth.

Christianity is not based on a cosmology that is known to be false based on the laws of physics. That’s atheism.


Susan in Houston
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 10:17 AM

How does Newtonian physics require the Moon to have been inside the Earth 1.3 billion years ago?

The prevailing theory now is that it formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

And I would love to hear your reasoning that the universe is not billions of years old.

Susan Astronomer Houston


Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Susan, No problem:

http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

The article I linked is written in layman’s terms, but the references at the end lead to more scholarly publications, which in turn lead to further scholarly publication. The organization that published the link is made up entirely of people with advanced degrees in mathematics and the hard sciences. They have astronomers and physicists who can explain the technical details off line better than I can here.

The idea that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old, while important to the Atheist Creation Myth, has too many holes in it to be considered scientific.

I have addressed this topic in great length in other threads here at the Patriot Post, and discussed such things as the implausibility of Spontaneous Generation, the implications of the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field, single fossils that span sedimentary layers that are declared to have taken millions of years to deposit, the results of the failed Miller-Urey experiments and what they proved about the formation of amino acids, the fact that the Big Bang Theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the fact that increasing complexity violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc.

Since you’re an astronomer though, I encourage you to contact icr.org, as their members have the wherewithal to discuss the details in a way that you and I cannot here at the Patriot Post.


Susan in Houston
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM

You are right, I am an astronomer. And looking at the the article you kindly posted, several things strike me.

First, the piece’s author had an honorary doctorate in science, hardly the credentials one looks for in cosmology theory. And he did his work in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. That is a long time ago in cosmology theory.

Second, the only link provided as a citation is circular (it leads right back to the same host website).

Third, three of the eight citations are by the author himself, and the most recent non-linked citation is 21 years old, and several are nearly fifty years old. That is forever in the field of cosmology.

If you want to believe what you believe, I think that’s great. Feel free. But please don’t present it as science. It isn’t.


Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Fair enough. I didn’t go through the citations for that particular article: I just grabbed to first one my search turned up because I know it’s been so thoroughly studied. I still recommend you contact ICR, as they restrict membership to people with advanced degrees in hard science and math – they can give you better citations than the one I listed. Mea Culpa: I was in a hurry.

But since you’re an astronomer you are acutely aware of the Earth’s escape velocity and what that means to the engineers who design space craft. Take a look at the Apollo modules: the bases of the landing gear are HUGE – far bulkier and heavier than they had to be. Why? Simple: we have a pretty good idea about how much stuff the Earth collides with, and based on the observed data, Hans Pettersson figured that the Moon accumulates dust at a certain rate. If the Moon is 4.5 billion years old, the lunar surface should be covered in dust to a degree sufficient to “swallow” a craft that is not equipped with large landing gear. Of course the depth of lunar dust was known to be measurable in inches as early as 1966 because of the Surveyor spacecraft and Earth-bound systems, but nothing dies harder than a theory that attempts to explain things without some pesky Creator to answer to. Thus the addition of precious bulk and weight to give the lunar modules a footprint that would keep them from sinking into a non-existent layer of deep lunar dust. As a scientist, think of all the instrumentation that could have taken the place of those bulky landing pads – pads that were KNOWN to be unnecessary but were included anyway because the disproved theory demanded them.

The required dust just isn’t there (I’m going to run out of space, but if you want to discuss the regolith I’ll do so later). The “Dusty Old Moon” paradigm was demonstrably wrong by several orders of magnitude. Astronomers are left with two obvious solutions (and a few highly unlikely ones): either they overestimated the rate at which the Moon collects dust by several orders of magnitude, or the Moon is not nearly as old as they think it is. Given what we know about the rate the Earth collides with stuff every day, it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that the dust level estimate should be several orders of magnitude off. Yet secular “scientists” dismiss the second likely possibility out of hand – not based on evidence, but because it doesn’t fit what you refer to as “the prevailing theory.” Now THAT is not science.


Susan in Houston
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 1:49 PM

No, Hans Peterson’s work was enormously preliminary, and probes we later launched (Pegasus, Surveyor) and extensive research has proved the micrometeoroid flux was far lower than Peterson predicted.


Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

That was kind-of my point. Hans Peterson was WAY wrong, as was proved by the methods we both mentioned. The point is that his conclusion was WILDLY inaccurate partially because his estimate of collisions with cosmic debris was too high, but MAINLY because it was based on the assumption that the Moon is 4.5 billion years old. Obviously other, later people have devised other methods for figuring this out, but none of them can even remotely justify an age of the Moon measuring in the billions of years using empirical data. The question to ask is this: why is the astronomical community SO dismissive of alternate theories that fit the known data better?

Nor have we addressed the increasing distance between the Earth and Moon I brought up originally. Granted, the source was self-referential, but the hard data still stand – the Moon is receding from the Earth at a known rate and we know what causes it. Extrapolating backwards puts the Moon inside the Roche limit far later than 4.5 billion years ago.

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Susan,

Perhaps you would care to contact a few of your colleagues who have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals and have them explain to you why you are wrong. All of the people on the following list have gone on record as rejecting the paradigm you espouse. My list is a few years old, and some of them may have moved to different institutions, but I’m sure the institutions I listed could put you in contact with those who are not still where they were when this list was compiled. May I suggest you begin with:

Dr. Keith Wanser: Physics (California State University, Fullerton) Dr John Rankin: Mathematical Physics (La Trobe University, Australia) Dr Edward A. Budreau: Theoretical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Chemical Physics (Tulane University) Dr Daniel Faulkner: Astronomy and Physics (University of South Carolina, Lancaster) Dr Andrew Snelling: Geology (ICR) Dr Elaine Kennedy: Geology (Geoscience Research Institute – US) Dr Donald Deyoung: Physics (Grace College, Indiana)

I don’t know any of these people personally, but I have read things they have written. As a matter of professional courtesy to a fellow scientist I imagine most of them would speak to you once you contact them. I just picked these particular people because they have written on this subject in ways that lead me to think you and they share some areas of expertise. I’ll be happy to give you dozens of names of biologists, biochemists, geneticists, information theorists, mathematicians, and botanists who can tell you why you’re wrong, too, but I thought I should start with people in the same general field as you. Let me know when you want THAT list. That is unless your “real (scientific) work” precludes you from questioning what you were taught.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

One Comment
  1. Russell Odom
    14 hrs · Las Vegas, NV ·

    Watching the show, “How the Universe Works”. According to the show, Dark Energy emerged into the universe about halfway through its existence (from the beginning of time until now). This Dark Energy is also increasing in mass over time. Scientists also believe that this Dark Energy will eventually cause the destruction of the universe. The universe is destined to die.

    They mentioned that the formation of the universe and the life within it is a miracle (although, they didn’t use the word “miracle”). If the universe expanded any faster than is has, galaxies wouldn’t have been able to form. If it expanded any slower, galaxies still wouldn’t have been able to form because the universe would have imploded on itself before they had the chance to.

    They call our universe a “Goldilocks universe”, because everything was set “just right” for galaxies to form. I’ve also heard this term used to describe our solar system as well. Everything was set “just right” for life to exist here. If the earth was any closer to the sun, we would burn up, any further, we would freeze. The spin of our planet is just right for life, so is the size of our planet, our atmosphere, and our electromagnetic field. Everything is “just right” for life, from the universe to our solar system to our planet. As though it’s a “miracle”.

    In our universe there are two opposing elements: one that is finely tuned with such precision that life is possible. And still, there is another force that opposes it that will eventually cause the universe’s destruction…. on its present course. Two opposing forces in the universe – one leading to life, the other to death.

    We can even see this happening in human culture throughout time. Humans have been in a battle between good and evil, life and death, since we came into existence. We can see good in humans an human culture: attitudes and actions that lead to life and prosperity. We can also see evil in humans and human culture: attitudes and actions that lead to the exploitation and eventual destruction. Two opposing forces, one that leads to life, the other to death.

    Adrien Nash without our electromagnetic field life on the surface would be destroyed by ultra-violet and other solar radiation, and also the moon is just the right size and distance and keeps the poles at a constant angle or else the rotation angle would fluctuate and also destroy life forms by intermittent freezing and frying, and horrendous storms. Man are we lucky! We won the Cosmic Lottery! Gee, just think about the odds,… a billion to one, -like hitting a hole in one from Los Angeles to New York! or something like that… plus! we aren’t located near the center of the galaxy being subjected to the massive radiation levels in that region along with facing being sucked into the Black Hole of Death!

    “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.”
    – Professor Freeman J. of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: