All posts in The Biggest Challenges to Evolution

Modern Physics – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

Physics (and math) have been discovered, not evolved. Naturalism can’t explain why physics and math are the way they are. Some naturalists don’t see this as a problem, because the fact that these mathematical and physical laws and principles exist is proof that they had to have formed to make the universe. “It’s perfect just because it is” isn’t a satisfactory answer. Naturalism doesn’t have an answer for how or why the laws of physics exist.

“Quantum mechanics [QM] really works, and has been strongly supported by experiment. The history and practice of QM shows no hidden motivation to attack a biblical world view, in contrast to uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology.”[i] Naturalists believe that the use of modern physics does, and will, give further evidence that there is no God and that they don’t need God. But from a creationist perspective, modern physics does, and will, continue to show the complexity of life and the universe , attesting to the fact that there is a supreme creator, an intelligence behind it all. Humankind will never catch up to the information hidden and evident within existence and that is a testimony to God’s wonderful omniscience.

In-The-BeginningGod has planned all of these things out, because He is all-knowing and all-powerful. In response to Stephen Hawking’s conclusion that there is no need for a creator, he places his faith in the idea that because of quantum mechanics, particles can “pop” into existence out of nothing. “So is it possible that the universe just popped into existence out of the vacuum through nothing more than a quantum fluctuation? Some people think so, although they seem to conveniently forget that the laws of quantum physics would have had to already be in existence, so one could not say that the universe created itself ‘out of nothing’. Others have pointed out, however, that the lifetime of quantum events is inversely proportional to the mass of the object and this precludes any such cosmological quantum event. If a universe did pop into existence by quantum fluctuation, nobody would notice—the lifetime of a quantum event the size of our universe would be less than 10-103 seconds. Moreover, virtual particles today appear within the vacuum of space. In the primordial singularity there was no space and so no vacuum.”[ii]

Hawking also assumes that God has to act within time to create the universe. Hawking’s definition of God is flawed, in that, God is actually timeless and spaceless, not being limited by those constraints. Hawking and Naturalism still can’t explain the origin of the law of causality, the laws of physics, as well as numerous other laws and concepts. “This inability to provide a cogent replacement for God as the source of scientific law is hardly surprising. Once you dismiss the concept of a Creator God who is not only a living supernatural being, but one who is also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it certainly is difficult to contrive an adequate substitute.”[iii]

In an attempt to answer the challenges to naturalism, naturalists suggest “that the universe is a three-dimensional ‘membrane’ floating through a four-dimensional ‘bulk universe’…They invoke higher dimensions and String theory to explain how their universe began and why it is. This is an appeal to new physics way beyond what we know now and can even hope to test experimentally, because it involves many more dimensions and takes place in some hypothetical past epoch and space.”[iv]

“This approach has been proposed with M theory, a form of String theory in as many as 11 dimensions (or even 28 in one form). Famously Leonard Susskind labelled the “M” in M theory as meaning ‘monstrous’. [The “M” stands for Membrane, though many think it should stand for “Magic,” “Mystery,” “Mother,” “Majesty,” “Madness” or other words that might fit better.[v]] M Theory and its cousin, String theory, are not physics but mathematics, which lack any predictive power in the real world and hence are untestable. This seems to me to be a grab for a solution, to find an uncaused cause, because the big bang (with its unbiblical sequence of events) needs a first cause.”[vi]

Because of the mysterious nature, one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics suggests that “it refutes both materialism and determinism opening the scientific door to the divine influence in the universe…it could provide a model for soul body interaction,” and the quantum mechanical indeterminacy may be “God working in the universe.”[vii] This is not to say that God is limited to working within known laws and processes, but possibly that the spiritual realm is quantum-ly entangled with the physical realm. “God is both the programmer and the source of power.”[viii]

These mysteries are tangible examples of how God is infinite, whereas we are finite. It is still mental gymnastics for us to try to figure out how our universe functions. God designed us for continual learning and the ability to do science (growing in knowledge) and that is part of what Heaven will be like – to be ALWAYS learning MORE about God. Heaven will not be a boring place. If we can slow down and appreciate how amazing and complicated our world is, we will realize that we will never stop learning and enjoying God’s creation.

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

[ii] Williams, A., and Hartnett, J., Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Books, Arizona, 2005, p. 120.

Russell Grigg, Curiosity: Did God create the universe?, November 12, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/curiosity-did-god-create-the-universe, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iii] Russell Grigg, Stephen Hawking: Key to the Cosmos, August 21, 2012, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/key-to-the-cosmos, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iv] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[v] M theory: what does it stand for? – Parallel Universes, Horizon, February 14, 2002, BBC Science, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wUh_eMtnFg, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vi] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[vii] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

[viii] Desmond Allen, An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance, February 22, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/reconciliation-of-physical-matter-and-metaphysical-cognizance/, accessed July 21, 2014.

Modern Physics – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

Sir Isaac Newton

Godfrey Kneller’s 1689 portrait of Isaac Newton (age 46) – Wikipedia

Modern Physics is the extension of previous levels of physics and is therefore the study of the fundamental and “weird” interactions that occur in our universe. Sir Isaac Newton really founded the study of physics by his understanding of gravity and forces (now called Newtonian or Classical Physics) and since then, modern physics has taken our understanding to a whole new level.

Quantum Mechanics was developed based on the research of atoms and subatomic particles. Quantum Mechanics gets its name from the discovery that energy within atoms is quantized, meaning that the smallest amounts of energy come in small packets or quanta (like integers – only 1, 2, 3, etc), rather than any variable amount of energy (like 2.63 or 5.41 or anywhere in between). Initial research was based on blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the atomic nature of elements. There are now “several classes of phenomena called ‘quantum effects.’” Some of the conclusions from the new physics can breach on the weird and paradoxical, as we shall see.

In Quantum Mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that at any given time, you simply cannot know both the position and velocity of an electron. You can know only one, or the other, at any given time and therefore you will not be able to tell where it will be later. The Wave-Particle Duality says that light and electrons act as both a wave and a particle, which seems contradictory and very mysterious. Because particles can have wave properties, quantum tunneling (a particle can instantaneously jump across a solid barrier) is thought to be possible. This phenomenon is theorized to be part of brain activity.[i] Quantum Entanglement is possible in that two or more particles can be in the same quantum state and then, even when separated by a great distance, when one of the particles is acted on, the other(s) is simultaneously affected. Because of Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Teleportation may be possible by acting on one of the entangled particles, which will then cause a reaction of the other entangled particle and thus we may be able to send information, or particles, with potentially “faster than light communication methods.” This means that you could change something locally and instantly affect the universe some distance away without any time needed for the information to travel that distance.[ii]

Two quantum effects are observable on the macroscopic scale with superconductors and superfluids. Superconductors can be created, at the right temperature, to cause the material to have no electrical resistance and therefore able to magnetically levitate. Also, if again we are at the right temperature, superfluids will have no viscosity.[iii]

If none of that seems weird to you yet, consider the most common interpretation of quantum mechanics… the Copenhagen Interpretation.  This interpretation suggests that particles exist in all of the possible quantum states, but when the particle is observed, then the quantum wave function collapses, meaning that you only end up seeing the particle in one state rather than all the states that it may have actually been in before…at the same time. Another interpretation is the Consistent History interpretation in that quantum mechanics only gives the probabilities of the possible histories.[iv] “Quantum mechanics says that we cannot tell for certain what property value will emerge when we take the measurement – all we can ever say is that the value will be a random choice from a selection of possible values.” “It’s as if the measurement process actually creates the property value.”[v] “The very act of observing will cause the phenomenon being observed to change—thus the term observer effect.”[vi] The famous example of this is the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment where either the cat is alive in a box or dead in a box and the theory seems to say that maybe it is both at the same time, until you open the box to observe the one real truth. “Ultimately the only thing that matters are the experimental results”[vii] that are observed.

Scientists are hopeful to use the properties of Quantum Mechanics to create Quantum computers. These will, for all intents and purposes, be able to compute practically every possible scenario simultaneously. There is currently a lot of controversy and challenges to this technology, but many expect this technology to be the way of the future.[viii]

There is evidence that quantum tunneling is a component of our sense of smell, and quantum entanglement may play a part in bird migration and navigation. “Also, supposedly primitive purple bacteria exploit quantum mechanics to make their photosynthesis 95% efficient. They use a complex of tiny antennae to harvest light, but this complex can be distorted which could harm efficiency. However, because of the wave and particle nature of light and matter, although it absorbs a single photon at a time, the wave nature means that the photon is briefly everywhere in the antenna complex at once. Then of all possible pathways, it is absorbed in the most efficient manner, regardless of any shape changes in the complex. As with the previous example, quantum coherence is normally observable at extremely low temperatures, but these bacteria manage at ordinary temperatures.”[ix]

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein

Einstein developed his theories of General and Special Relativity to explain that gravity and an objects speed will change the length and mass of an object and the passage of time. With more gravity and more speed, time will slow down.[x]

Particle Physics and Quark Theory have also arisen, which is adding to what we know about the elementary particles. “According to the [Quark] theory, there are six types of quarks. Many particles, such as protons and neutrons, consist of the combination of two quarks. The different combinations of quarks lead to different particles…In recent years, particle physicists have in similar fashion developed string theory. Physicists have noticed that certain patterns among elementary particles can be explained easily if particles behave as tiny vibrating strings…As theoretical physicists refine their theories and we build new, powerful particle accelerators, physicists expect that one day we can test whether string theory is true, but for now there is no experimental evidence for string theory… Currently, most physicists think that string theory is a very promising idea. Assuming that string theory is true, there still remains the question as to which particular version of string theory is the correct one. You see, string theory is not a single theory but instead is a broad outline of a number of possible theories. Once we confirm string theory, we can constrain which version properly describes our world. If true, string theory could lead to new technologies.”[xi] But some think that “string theory has many problems”[xii] so it remains to be seen if this theory will hold out or be replaced as more tests are completed.

Modern physicists are currently working on combining the different theories of modern physics into one unified Theory of Everything (TOE). “Consequently, resolving the inconsistencies between both theories [relativity and quantum physics] has been a major goal of 20th and 21st century physics. Many prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking, have labored for many years in the attempt to discover a theory underlying everything. This TOE would combine not only the different models of subatomic physics, but also derive the four fundamental forces of nature – the strong force, electromagnetism, the weak force, and gravity – from a single force or phenomenon. While Stephen Hawking was initially a believer in the Theory of Everything, after considering Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, he has concluded that one is not obtainable.”[xiii] Other researchers are still hopeful to unlock the ultimate Theory of Everything.

Do we really understand Modern Physics? What do we really know for sure? How will our understanding of physics change in the future? Does physics tell us anything about God?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Einstein’s theories of relativity show that around black holes, time will be slower the closer one gets, until, within the black hole, time would actually stop, or rather, would not exist. Stephen Hawking explains how this would be true and that there was no time “before” the big bang. Hawking also describes how in quantum physics, particles can “pop” into existence from nowhere and therefore there is no problem with the idea that an entire universe explodes from nothing, out of nowhere. It is even possible that the universe is uncaused, because there is no time for a something or some creator to cause the universe. Therefore, there is no need to say that any creator caused the universe.[xiv]

Living organisms appear to have evolved to use quantum mechanical advantages within nature. “In artificial systems, quantum superposition and entanglement typically decay rapidly unless cryogenic temperatures are used. Could life have evolved to exploit such delicate phenomena? Certain migratory birds have the ability to sense very subtle variations in Earth’s magnetic field. Here we apply quantum information theory and the widely accepted “radical pair” model to analyze recent experimental observations of the avian compass. We find that superposition and entanglement are sustained in this living system for at least tens of microseconds, exceeding the durations achieved in the best comparable man-made molecular systems. This conclusion is starkly at variance with the view that life is too “warm and wet” for such quantum phenomena to endure.”[xv]

As scientists continue the study and understanding of modern physics, there will be better explanations for everything and therefore completely overwhelm the need that many people have to resort to God or any sort of gods as the original cause. Naturalistic processes can explain everything, even the origin of the universe. Part of the excitement is the mystery in the things that we don’t know and understand yet, and that is what makes the process of science so great. The god of lightning, the sun god, the moon god, the rain god and multitudes of other gods have been successfully dethroned. Based on this, there is an extremely high probability that there is no need for any other god, not one. It would be foolish to resort to believing in a magical god just because some questions and mysteries are still unanswered.

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

 

[i] Friedrich Beck, Synaptic Quantum Tunnelling in Brain Activity, NeuroQuantology, June 2008, Vol 6, Issue 2, p. 140-151, http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/168/168, accessed July 19, 2014.

[ii] Rupert Ursin, Thomas Jennewein, Markus Aspelmeyer, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Michael Lindenthal, Philip Walther, Anton Zeilinger, Brief Communications, Communications: Quantum teleportation across the Danube, August 19, 2004, Nature 430, 849, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/abs/430849a.html, accessed July 21, 2014.

[iii] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Luke Mastin, Quanta and Wave-Particle Duality, 2009, Main Topics: Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle, The Physics of the Universe, http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_quanta.html, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iv] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

[v] Andrew Thomas, The Quantum Casino, http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_quantum_casino.asp, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vi] Desmond Allen, An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance, February 22, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/reconciliation-of-physical-matter-and-metaphysical-cognizance/, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vii] Interpretations of Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://gscim.com/phy/Quantum_Mechanics/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics.html, accessed July 19, 2014.

[viii] Nicola Jones, Computing: The quantum company, D-Wave is pioneering a novel way of making quantum computers – but it is also courting controversy, June 19, 2013, Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/computing-the-quantum-company-1.13212, accessed July 21, 2014.

[ix] Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

[x] Danny Faulkner, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 30: Do Creationists Believe in “Weird” Physics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory?, September 2, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/do-creationists-believe-in-weird-physics/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xi] Danny Faulkner, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 30: Do Creationists Believe in “Weird” Physics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory?, September 2, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/do-creationists-believe-in-weird-physics/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xii] Russell Grigg, Stephen Hawking: Key to the Cosmos, August 21, 2012, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/key-to-the-cosmos, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xiii] Quantum mechanics, Wikipedia, last modified July 14, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Stephen Hawking, “Gödel and the end of physics,” last modified November 23, 2011, Strings 2002, Cambridge, July 15-20, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strings02/dirac/hawking/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xiv] Did God Create The Universe?, August 7, 2011, Curiosity, Discovery Channel, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/did-god-create-the-universe.htm, accessed July 18, 2014.

[xv] Gauger, E.M. et al., Sustained Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the Avian Compass, Physical Rev. Lett. 106: 040503, 2011 P-I-P-E doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.040503.

Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Strong Magnetic Fields – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

According to the National Geomagnetic Initiative, “the mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field remains one of the central unresolved problems in geosciences.”[i] “Magnetism is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when William Gilbert (1544-1603) wrote his classic text, ‘Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet, Earth’ in 1600.”[ii]

Earth's Interior“What a planet needs in order to produce a strong magnetic field is (1) a liquid conducting (metallic) interior and (2) rapid rotation to get the conducting material moving about.”[iii] The magnetic field is based on the amount of the liquid swirling within the earth. The faster the moving currents, the stronger the magnetic field would be. “If the liquid interior becomes solid or if the rotation slows down, the magnetic field will weaken.”[iv] Over time, the earth, like most things, has been cooling and its rotation slowing so the magnetic field is expected to weaken.

Naturalism needs a way for magnetic fields to continually recharge, and this they call the Dynamo effect. “Currents create a magnetic field–a distribution of magnetic forces–and the essence of the self-sustaining dynamo problem is to find solutions such that the resulting magnetic field is also the input field required for generating the current in the first place…Actually, that is only the lowest level of the problem, in which one is free to prescribe the motions. To solve the full problem, we also need information about the heat sources, and these sources must be able to drive motions which also solve the dynamo problem.”[v]

“Scientists are still not sure about what provides the heat in the Earth’s core. It might come from some of the iron becoming solid and joining the inner core, or perhaps it is generated by radioactivity, like the heat of the Earth’s crust.” [vi] “Such problems are not easy. They involve intricate mathematics and are not yet fully solved.” [vii] “Evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the rapid decay of the field.”[viii]

The Earth’s magnetic field must have been much stronger in the past, and in fact it has weakened, at a minimum, of about 7% since the first recordings in 1827. By knowing the intensity, one can calculate the amount of electrical energy as well. Based on the Dynamic Decay theory, which is a creation model of the magnetic fields, the intensity and energy are both noticeably going down and it fits with both a young earth and global flood model.[ix]

“Archaeomagnetism” is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists…the data show that the field intensity at the earth’s surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ. A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today…Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth’s magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then.” [x] Therefore, there is no way that these fields were formed billions of years ago; if it were a normal strength billions of years ago, it would be really weak or essentially gone today. “The maximum age for the Earth’s magnetic field: about 20,000 Years.”[xi] “But even in this extreme case, the maximum age would still be only about 100,000 years, far short of the billions of years evolution needs.”[xii]

“Paleomagnetism is the study of magnetization locked into rocks at the time of their formation. Paleomagnetic data shows that while the geologic strata were being laid down, the earth’s magnetic field reversed its direction hundreds of times. Reversals are a very severe departure from steady decay of intensity,”[xiii] the once prevailing Creationist theory. Creation Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys “suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth’s core could produce rapid reversals of the field during [“most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two.”[xiv]] and after the Genesis flood. The resulting disturbances in the core would cause the field intensity at the earth’s surface to fluctuate up and down for thousands of years afterwards.”[xv] For this theory, he “showed a specific physical mechanism for such reversals.”[xvi]

“Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks [around the time of the flood]. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model.”[xvii]

To allow for a dynamo causing a long-lasting magnetic field, the core needs to be liquid. Mercury still has a magnetic field, but “Mercury is so small that the general opinion is that the planet should have frozen solid eons ago.”[xviii] In fact, in a recent mission to Mercury, “Messenger found that Mercury’s field strength had fallen by almost eight percent since its last measurement 36 years earlier. This works out to a half-life of about 320 years. In other words, Mercury loses half its magnetic field strength every 300 years or so. This is an astonishingly quick rate for an entire planet. It’s also very close to the predictions of Dr. Humphrey’s Bible-based model for Mercury. On the other hand, it thoroughly contradicts secular expectations. With a half-life of 320 years, Mercury’s field should have been completely gone billions of years ago – if Mercury were actually billions of years old.”[xix]

Ganymede - moon

Ganymede

Naturalistic models say that Ganymede can’t have a magnetic field…but it does. Saturn’s “magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary predictions at all.” Creation models fit the evidence better and based on his models, Dr. Humphreys correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, which are very abnormal in that the magnetic fields “are strongly offset from their rotation axis. This discovery was contrary to evolutionary predictions, but is consistent with creation.”[xx] Naturalists still can’t explain “‘the enigma of lunar magnetism’—the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it rotates only once a month…[and] it never had a molten core.”[xxi] The sun’s magnetic field reverses every 11 years, “but its ultimate causes remain mysterious.”[xxii]

Naturalistic scientists “continually adjust various magnetic dynamo theories, but none yet proposed have succeeded in theoretically upholding the magnetic field strength over the billions of years since the planets supposedly formed.”[xxiii] The naturalistic dynamo “model contradicts some basic laws of physics. Furthermore, their model fails to explain the modern, measured electric current in the seafloor. Nor can it explain the past field reversals, computer simulations notwithstanding.”[xxiv] “Evolution’s long-age dynamo model fails to match the data. In contrast, a quickly decaying, rapidly fluctuating magnetic field fits the free decay model and an age for earth of only thousands of years.”[xxv]

 

 

What the Bible Says: Psalms 91, Proverbs 3:5

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] U.S. Geodynamics Committee, National Research Council, The National Geomagnetic Initiative, 1993, The National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=2238 or http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2238&page=1, accessed June 30, 2014, page 3.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[ii] S.R. Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, pp. 163-164.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[iii] Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[iv] Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[v] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[vi] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[vii] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[viii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[ix] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[x] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xi] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xiii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xiv] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xv] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xvi] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xvii] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

R.S. Coe and M. Prévot, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science 92(3/4):292–298, April 1989. See also the reports by Dr Andrew Snelling, Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, Creation 13(3):46–50, 1991 The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth, Creation 13(4):44–48, 1991.

R.S. Coe, M. Prévot and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374(6564):687–692, 1995; see also A. Snelling, The principle of ‘least astonishment’, Journal of Creation 9(2):138–139, 1995.

[xviii] S.R.Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, p. 163.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xix] Spike Psarris, Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists, Alpha Omega Insistute and CreationAstronomy.com, http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/MercuryNewDiscoveriesDelightCreationists.htm, accessed June 30, 2014.

Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[xx] Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xxi] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

Irene Antonenko, New Insights into the Moon’s Mysterious Magnetic Field, January 30, 2012, Universe Today, http://www.universetoday.com/93118/new-insights-into-the-moons-mysterious-magnetic-field/, accessed July 22, 2014.

R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983.

[xxii] Mike Wall, Sun’s Magnetic Field Reversal Still A Scientific Mystery, August 13, 2013, The Huffington Post, Space.com, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/sun-magnetic-field-reversal-scientific-mystery_n_3748515.html, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xxiii] Brian Thomas, Saturn’s Magnetic Field Auroras: Evidence for Creation, June 4, 2014, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/8175/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xxiv] Andrew Snelling, #5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/, accessed July 22, 2014.

  1. J. Lanzerotti, et al., “Measurements of the Large-Scale Direct-Current Earth Potential and Possible Implications for the Geomagnetic Dynamo,” Science 229, no. 4708 (1985): 47–49.
  2. Russell Humphreys, “Can Evolutionists Now Explain the Earth’s Magnetic Field?” Creation Research Society Quarterly 33, no. 3 (1996): 184–185.

[xxv] Brian Thomas, Magnetic Field Data Confirm Creation Model, December 28, 2010, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/magnetic-field-data-confirm-creation/, accessed July 22, 2014.

Strong Magnetic Fields – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Magnetic Fields

Introduction:

The earth and many other planets, and even the sun, currently retain very strong magnetic fields. Over time those magnetic fields should have weakened. Is there a phenomenon that can recharge dying magnetic fields? How are these magnetic fields formed? Are magnetic fields formed naturally or designed by God for our protection? How do the magnetic fields really affect earth? What does the evidence tell us about the age of the earth and the universe?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and its magnetic field is due to the movement of charged metals within the earth’s liquid outer core. This moving of charged metals will always form a magnetic field around them naturally. The earth formed with swirling currents of hot, molten rock, which simultaneously created magnetic fields associated with the swirling mass. So the earth has always had a strong magnetic field, and for that matter, magnetic fields have probably formed around most, if not all, other astronomical objects as well. The human body even has a slight magnetic field. The earth’s magnetic field has a positive impact on this planet as it shields harmful solar and celestial radiation from entering our atmosphere.

Over earth’s history, the chaotic currents are like a “dynamo” inside the earth, which is always moving and causing the magnetic field to change constantly and these “magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another.” From ocean sediment cores and surveys and the fossil record, magnetic fields are recorded in the rocks and specifically show that the poles even occasionally flip, making the north pole the south pole and then back again. This pole reversal happens “about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal.” “Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years,” and each reversal may take a few thousand years. Fortunately, these pole reversals don’t appear to cause environmental problems or exposure to harmful radiation , since there still is a magnetic field, it is just changing.[i]

The earth’s magnetic field has actually weakened by 10% since the 19th century, but University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier says that “the field is increasing or decreasing all the time.” “We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record.” He also explains that that 10% is a relatively small amount of change and that “Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal…twice (as much as) the million-year average.”[ii]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] 2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time, November 30, 2011, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html, accessed November 1, 2013.

[ii] Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field, December 29, 2003, NASA Science, Science News, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/, accessed November 1, 2013.

 

The Big Bang Theory – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

Naturalists say that the universe is billions of years old, based on current observations, but this is again based on their assumptions of the current data. Creationists say that current observations show that the universe could not be billions of years old and the Bible, God’s historical record, describes the creation account only several thousand years ago. There are many things that point to a young universe, such as: the existence of comets, magnetic field strengths, rotations and revolutions of planetary bodies (and many of their moons), and the compositions and structures of stars, planets and galaxies.

HotStarThe Big Bang Theory, attempting to describe the universe’s initial catastrophic event, is very complex, but still leaves a lot of questions that have to be answered. Mathematicians and Physicists are still trying to work out how (and why) the universe came from nothing, proceeded to be everything in an infinitesimally small point and then eventually expanded to what it is today. They have much to try to explain, but it still won’t be able to answer questions about the naturalistic processes of the universe before the Big Bang (much of the how and why). Just because a theory has a lot to still explain doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, but is their hypothesis the best explanation of the observations? Naturalists would say “yes,” because they will not accept any supernatural explanation and will therefore throw out all creation viewpoints.

The Big Bang Theory has been plagued with many problems, including – missing magnetic monopoles, the flatness problem, missing Population III stars, and many, many more.[i] “With all the problems…it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5 who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.’”[ii]

Scientists have also struggled with the problem of missing antimatter. “Physical laws indicate that equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have been created in the proposed ‘big bang.’ Therefore missing antimatter in the universe should challenge the ‘big bang’ theory, an implication none of the authors apparently is willing to entertain.”[iii]

In the Big Bang model, the universe should be spread out evenly, which studies of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) show that it is, but it is spread out too evenly as further observations are confirming. There should be evidence that there are fluctuations in the early universe that would cause large clusters of galaxies and stars to form. So to overcome this challenge, big bang theorists had to propose the inflation theory, stating that shortly after the big bang different parts of the universe expanded, or inflated, even faster to create clumping and allow star formation to occur. What causes the differences in inflation is unknown, but some suggest that it may be quantum fluctuations, or interference from other universes or dimensions, or possibly a phase change in the universe as it was cooling. “In short, the inflation and phase change theories constructed to explain cosmic structure via the big bang are themselves unverifiable speculation. Indeed, inflation resulted in ‘increasingly complicated’ models, which ‘[came] nowhere close to providing us with an understanding of the large-scale homogeneity of the universe’.”[iv] “Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself.”[v]

One researcher complained, “‘The Big Bang theory … fails to tell us how galaxies, stars and planets formed: If the universe began as a homogeneous soup, why did it not stay so forever?’ Finally, there were ‘widespread reports of the death of the Big Bang [but] Big Bang proponents responded with new ad hoc hypotheses’ to save the theory.”[vi]

Big Bang theorists suggest that dark matter has a role in the early formation of the universe, but “dark matter is supposed to emit no light or other electromagnetic radiation, so would be invisible, but this means that ‘its existence must remain an article of faith for the true believer in the standard model’.” Because of “galaxy clusters…the largest observable scales in the universe: the cosmos appears incorrigibly ‘lumpy’…dark matter does not really explain how this ‘lumpiness’ developed” from so little fluctuations in the CBR.[vii]

“Theorists … invented the concepts of inflation and cold dark matter to augment the big bang paradigm and keep it viable, but they, too, have come into increasing conflict with observations. In the light of all these problems, it is astounding that the big bang hypothesis is the only cosmological model that physicists have taken seriously.”[viii]

So, what caused the universe to explode or expand? Physicist Alan Guth says that “in spite of the fact that we call it the big bang theory, it really says absolutely nothing about the big bang. It doesn’t tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn’t even describe—it doesn’t really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this big bang.”[ix]

Consider the philosophy and praise given by physicist Paul Davies, as he says, “yet the laws [of physics] that permit a Universe to create itself are even more impressive than a cosmic magician. If there is a meaning or purpose beneath physical existence, then it is to those laws rather than to the big bang that we should direct our attention.”[x] This is quite similar to Romans 1:25 where it says, “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

“Modern big bang theory is an attempt to describe the universe without the Creator…It is not science in the usual repeatable laboratory experimental sense and it is very weak as one can never be certain one’s model actually describes reality. This is story-telling at its best.”[xi]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

[ii] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

  1. Lerner et al., An open letter to the scientific community, New Scientist 182(2448):20, May 22, 2004.

[iii] Michael Oard, Missing antimatter challenges the ‘big bang’ theory, December 1998, Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 12(3):256, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/missing-antimatter-challenges-the-big-bang-theory, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iv] Earman, J. and Mosterin, J., A critical look at inflationary cosmology, Philosophy of Science 66:1–49, 1999; p. 1.

Penrose, R., Difficulties with inflationary cosmology, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 571:249–264, 1989; p. 249.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[v] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?, April 15, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/#fn_1, accessed July 18, 2014.

[vi] Ferris, T., The Red Limit, Quill, New York, p. 66, 1983.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[vii] Sandage, A., Observational tests of world models, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 26:561–630, 1988; p. 623.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[viii] Oldershaw, R., What’s wrong with the new physics? New Scientist 127(1748):56–59, 1990; p. 59.

As quoted in: Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[ix] Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT, “Before, Meanwhile and After the BIG BANG—(M-Theory)”, youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAagw6iug, 11 September 2007.

John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[x] Davies, P., Is the Universe a free lunch?, 3 March 1996; independent.co.uk.

John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[xi] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

The Big Bang Theory – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

Based on current observations, the universe is expanding. “If we could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse, we would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a point, not the size of a basketball, not the size of a golf ball, not even the size of a pinhead, but mathematically and logically to a point that is actually nothing (i.e., no space, no time, and no matter). In other words, once there was nothing, and then, BANG, there was something – the entire universe exploded into being! This, of course, is what is commonly called ‘the Big Bang.’”[i]

What was before this big bang? What caused the big bang to happen? What was the early universe really like as it was exploding outward? Are there problems with the big bang theory? Is there a better explanation for what has been observed? Does the big bang solve as many problems as it creates?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered, among other things, that galaxies were moving away from us.  Consequently, it seemed reasonable that everything must have started in one place, later called the singularity. This is the basis for the Big Bang theory.[ii]

The Big Bang actually wasn’t an explosion but instead was simply an expansion. “Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.”[iii]

One second after the bang, there would have been “a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos.”[iv] Those elements would continue to separate (as the balloon expanded) and yet combine to form hydrogen and other basic elementary particles. As the early universe expanded and cooled, it left its mark as it spread out, which is observed today as the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). The CBR is evidence we can observe today for the big bang.[v] Scientists can map the CBR and determine where the hot or cold spots are, at different points, and how those spots will show where clusters and galaxies will form.

The universe not only expanded in a big bang, but possibly different parts of the universe grew, or inflated, at different rates. This is suggested due to the fact that the CBR shows the overall temperature of the universe is too constant, and therefore, hot and cold spots would have had “bursts of expansion called “inflation”” to be able to reach each other and combine.[vi] The inflation theory helps solve the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the magnetic monopole problem, although it does cause some new ones.[vii]

What was before the Big Bang? Scientists can only offer hypotheses with, unfortunately, little ability to test. It is suggested that the universe came from nothing. “The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don’t know. We don’t know where it came from, why it’s here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn’t exist and neither did we.”[viii]

Big Bang Diagram - Wikipedia

This is an artist’s concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. CMB Timeline300 no WMAP – Public Domain

Some say that the idea of the universe coming from nothing “clashes with common sense.” It is therefore suggested that the Universe has always existed and continually goes through cycles of expansion and crunching. It has also been suggested that a previous universe caused the inflation of this universe – like a bubble producing another bubble. Thus our universe is “one of countless bubbles floating around within the “multiverse,”” which is eternally evolving.[ix] The Big Bang may have been caused by the mysterious workings of quantum mechanics, in that, particles can pop into existence out of nowhere and then even disappear.[x]

Scientists are currently unsure “whether the Universe will expand forever” – and cause a heat death with temperatures slowly approaching absolute zero, “or whether it will someday stop, turn around, and collapse in a “Big Crunch.”[xi] Scientists expected that the gravity of the matter of the universe would slow the expansion of the universe, but it is not slowing down, instead it seems to be accelerating. So scientists theorize that there is some energy, Dark Energy, pulling the universe away from itself.

There are many questions, and “little is known about the earliest moments of the universe’s history,” but as more data comes in, more answers should be available. “While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future.”[xii]

The origin of the laws of science itself raise “some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it…But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.””[xiii]

Ultimately the Big Bang is a naturalistic way to understand our universe and therefore there is no need to invoke a creator.[xiv]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

 

[i] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2004, p. 79.

[ii] The Big Bang, last updated March 8, 2013, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[iii] Big Bang Theory – An Overview, All About Science, http://www.big-bang-theory.com/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[iv] The Big Bang, last updated March 8, 2013, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[v] Tests of Big Bang: The CMB, last updated June 24, 2011, NASA, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html, accessed November 5, 2013.

[vi] The Big Bang, last updated March 8, 2013, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[vii] Roger Penrose, Difficulties with inflationary cosmology, NASA, NSF, Texas Academy of Science, et al., Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, 14th, Dallas, TX, Dec. 11-16, 1988 New York Academy of Sciences, Annals(ISSN 0077-8923), vol. 571, 1989, p. 249-264., http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989NYASA.571..249P, accessed November 5, 2013.

Sean Carroll, Cosmic Variance: The Eternally Existing, Self-Reproducing, Frequently Puzzling Inflationary Universe, October 21, 2011, Discover Magazine Blog, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/10/21/the-eternally-existing-self-reproducing-frequently-puzzling-inflationary-universe/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[viii] Big Bang Theory – An Overview, All About Science, http://www.big-bang-theory.com/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[ix] Steve Nadis, What Came Before the Big Bang? October 10, 2013, Discover Magazine, http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point, accessed November 5, 2013.

[x] Did God Create The Universe?, August 7, 2011, Curiosity, Discovery Channel, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/did-god-create-the-universe.htm, accessed July 18, 2014.

[xi] The Big Bang, last updated March 8, 2013, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/, accessed November 5, 2013.

[xii] Physical Definition of Time, The Anderson Institute, http://www.andersoninstitute.com/physical-definition-of-time.htm, accessed November 5, 2013.

[xiii] Steve Nadis, What Came Before the Big Bang? October 10, 2013, Discover Magazine, http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point, accessed November 5, 2013.

[xiv] Tom Frame, Losing my religion, 2009, UNSW Press, p. 137-141.

Stephen Hawking, quoting Carl Sagan, in the introduction to A Brief History in Time, 1988, p. X.

Elements of Life – Creation Perspective

The Magnificent Earth

Creation Answer:

God created the Earth before the sun, moon, and stars, and  so the earth is very unique. He created the sun and the moon specifically to be perfect for the life that He created on the earth. The earth is perfect for life, especially compared to other planets. The earth is so perfect that naturalists have to make countless assumptions, making it harder to believe their story than to accept God and His record of history.

God created and placed the elements just the way He wanted them – to give Him glory. There is no way for naturalism to explain why physics and the elements work the way they do. Renowned physicist James Clark Maxwell states that “there are immense numbers of other atoms of the same kind [throughout the universe]…Each is physically independent of all the others…We are then forced to look beyond them to some common cause or common origin [i.e. supernatural creation] to explain why this singular relation of quality exists.” His words still hold true that there needs to be a cause for the laws and structure of our universe.[i]

Currently, “there’s one thing on which most geochemists and astronomers agree: The celestial pantry is now empty of a key ingredient in the recipe for Earth.”[ii] This is saying that the origin of water on earth is still unknown. Water could not have survived the conditions in space and the hot early earth; it would have been burned up and lost to space. It has long been thought that water has come from comets shortly after the majority of the earth had accumulated, but recent studies of the water on comets show that they have a heavier water molecule. So those comets could not have contributed the majority of the water to the earth, because making the earth’s oceans from those comets would have been like “trying to make a low-fat dessert from heavy cream.”[iii]

“Scientists don’t really understand why various objects have different amounts of heavy water…People generally think that objects which formed further from the Sun should have more heavy water, but the new measurements don’t really fit.”[iv] Scientists estimate that “probably less than 15 percent” of the earth’s oceans could have come from comets or other space objects, although there may be evidence that some comets or other objects may in fact have the correct water for the earth.[v] Some scientists conjecture that “if existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog.”[vi] This means that there is no evidence of that hypothetical material that preserved the water during the formation of the earth.

“Water isn’t the only matter on our planet today that seems unlikely to have formed at Earth’s proximity to the sun. There are also compounds and elements that readily vaporize, including chemically inert noble gases, such as argon, krypton, and xenon, and the elements nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen.” Osmium should have sunk towards the center of the earth early on in the earth’s formation, but yet it is found in the crust of the earth and the osmium that is found, does not match the osmium isotopes found on meteorites.[vii]

There are other planets and moons in our solar system that are perplexing as to how they have (or still have) the elements they currently do. Mercury, for example, should not be as dense as it is, so naturalists hypothesize that a large impact must have brought heavier material while stripping the light material away from the planet. There is no evidence of this kind of impact.[viii]

Enceladus geysers - Public Domain

Enceladus geysers

“Evolutionary models predicted that Jupiter would lack certain elements: argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and others. But it turns out that Jupiter has lots of these elements.” Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, “has an atmosphere of mostly Nitrogen and Methane. Sunlight breaks methane down…Titan’s methane would only last for a few million years, not 4.5 billion years. However there is still methane there today…If Titan were really billions of years old, it would have…a source of new methane [and] lots of accumulated ethane…They have found potential lakes of methane and ethane, but at most only 1/10 of what it should have…They have only found 4 craters on Titan meaning that it is really young.”[ix] Another challenging moon of Saturn is Enceladus, which has a geyser on its south pole, but it should be “cold, old, and dead.”[x]

Jupiter’s moon, Io, is very volcanically active, which is a huge challenge for old age views. It puts off a tremendous amount of heat and material and simply would not be like that after billions of years. Callisto is also very geologically active, but shouldn’t be.[xi]

Also, the “naturalistic theory did not expect a uniform atomic nature of matter. ‘The relative abundances of the various isotopes of different elements are repeatedly found in similar ratios in stars, in the interstellar medium, in meteorite fragments and in the earth’s crust. The similarity of these ratios cannot be accidental, and the detailed explanation of the hundreds of known abundance ratios provides a severe task for the theory of stellar evolution.’”[xii] “In a similar vein, Gamow, a prime originator of big bang theory, also claimed ‘Relative abundances of elements [throughout the cosmos] have been exhaustively studied. … The most important result of these studies is the fact that the chemical composition of the universe is surprisingly uniform [emphasis in original].’ The interstellar medium and the intergalactic medium have D/H [Deuterium to Hydrogen] abundance ratios that do not fit into conventional NST [Nucleosynthesis Theory].”[xiii]

“It has long been claimed that big bang theory correctly predicted the 3:1 abundance of H to He in the universe. This is not true. The H/He ratio was known before big bang NST was conceived. The theory has been modified to fit the facts.” Therefore, these were not “predictions, but merely adjustments of theory (‘retrodictions’) to accommodate current data.” Also, “the belief in dark matter is at least partly due to retro-fitting big bang theory to the observed H/He cosmic abundance ratio.”[xiv]

“Other long-standing difficulties are the deuterium synthesis problem, and the overage of Population I stars. Neither has stellar NST actually explained the origin of the elements. The elements in their existence and abundances continue to point to creation.”[xv]

Radioactive decay of elements has been assumed to be constant. There are many observations that confirm this, but as more research is taking place, there are more reasons to be skeptical of that assumption. Rocks can be accurately dated only if: 1) the initial conditions are assumed correctly; 2) the elements have remained the same (they cannot come and go within the rock); and 3) the decay rate is and has remained constant.[xvi]

Some scientists are observing that radioactive decay rates may be faster the closer you get to the sun (or due to solar flares) – possibly because of more neutrinos or some other unknown particles coming from the sun.[xvii] Neutrinos can also originate from nuclear reactions in the earth or from other sources in the galaxy, both of which could affect the decay rates.[xviii] Some experiments are starting to show that under certain conditions (temperature, specific ionized states, and chemical environment), some decay rates are up to billions of times faster than normally observed.[xix]

As radioactive decay occurs, a common by-product is helium. Therefore helium is created within rocks and the rate that helium leaves those rocks has been observed and calculated. But if the earth were old, there should be much less helium in these rocks. This should contribute to more helium being in the atmosphere. Helium does escape the earth’s atmosphere, but that rate is less than the amount that is coming out of the rocks. This means that there should be more helium in the atmosphere, but there is not, and Hourglass and bookso this evidence shows that the atmosphere can be no more than 2 million years old.[xx] And actually “helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium should have leaked out [of the rocks] in less than 100,000 years.”[xxi] There is even Carbon-14 in coal, fossils, and diamonds, which should have decayed beyond detection by now and thus is evidence that these items are not millions of years old.[xxii]

The most challenging aspect for naturalism is that it has an almost impossible amount of variables and details to work out in their theories. They bear the burden of proof to show more evidence that will prove answers beyond a reasonable doubt for the many necessary processes for their theory to be true. Naturalists have a lot of challenging questions to answer. Consider even how they claim that the earth gained its oxygen from cyanobacteria around 2.45 billion years ago during the Great Oxidation Event, “but mysteries remain. What occurred 2.45 billion years ago that enabled cyanobacteria to take over? What were oxygen levels at that time? Why did it take another one billion years—dubbed the “boring billion” by scientists—for oxygen levels to rise high enough to enable the evolution of animals? Most important, how did the amount of atmospheric oxygen reach its present level? ‘It’s not that easy why it should balance at 21 percent rather than 10 or 40 percent,’ notes geoscientist James Kasting of Pennsylvania State University. ‘We don’t understand the modern oxygen control system that well.’”[xxiii] Everything in this complex story, billions of years long, with very little observation and experimentation is a rough guess, very speculative and worthy of healthy skepticism.

 

What the Bible Says: Gen 1-2

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Maxwell, J., Atom; in: Encyclopedia Britannica 3:36–49, 1878; p. 49.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[ii] Ben Harder, Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s oceans come from the heavens?, Science News, Volume 161, No. 12, March 23, 2002, p. 184, Science News Online, http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/water_for_the_rock.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iii] Ben Harder, Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s oceans come from the heavens?, Science News, Volume 161, No. 12, March 23, 2002, p. 184, Science News Online, http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/water_for_the_rock.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iv] Holly Hight, Comets were responsible for Earth’s oceans, October 6, 2011, Cosmos Online, http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/comets-were-responsible-earths-oceans/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[v] Kimberly M. Burtnyk, Did Comets bring water to Earth?, June 13, 2012, EarthSky, http://earthsky.org/space/did-comets-bring-water-to-earth, accessed June 30, 2014.

[vi] Ben Harder, Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s oceans come from the heavens?, Science News, Volume 161, No. 12, March 23, 2002, p. 184, Science News Online, http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/water_for_the_rock.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[vii] Ben Harder, Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s oceans come from the heavens?, Science News, Volume 161, No. 12, March 23, 2002, p. 184, Science News Online, http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/water_for_the_rock.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[viii] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[ix] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[x] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xi] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xii] Harwit, M., Astrophysical Concepts, Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, p. 304, 1982.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xiii] Gamow, G., The Creation of the Universe, Mentor Books, New York, p. 49, 1952.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xiv] Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xv] Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xvi] Mike Riddle, Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?, October 4, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xvii] Dan Stober, The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements, August 23, 2010, Stanford News, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xviii] Emil Silvestru, Neutrinos – the not-so-neutral particles, December 2010, Journal of Creation 24(3):13-14, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/neutrinos-not-so-neutral, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xix] John Woodmorappe, Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory, August 2001, Journal of Creation 15(2):4-6, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory, accessed June 30, 2014.

Tas Walker, Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment, April 2000, Journal of Creation 14(1):4-5, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xx] Jonathan Sarfati, Blowing old-earth belief away: Helium gives evidence that the earth is young, June 1998, Creation 20(3):19-21, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/blowing-old-earth-belief-away-helium, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xxi] Andrew Snelling, #6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xxii] Andrew Snelling, #7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/, accessed July 17, 2014.

Andrew Snelling, Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds: An Evolution Dilemma, December 8, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/, accessed June 30, 2014.

Gary Bates, Flood Fossils: A stunning new book with family friendly, groundbreaking creationist research will excite many, July 17, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/flood-fossils-book, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xxiii] David Biello, The Origin of Oxygen in Earth’s Atmosphere, August 19, 2009, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/, accessed June 30, 2014.

Elements of Life – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

The Earth is a unique place that is not poisonous to life, but has all the resources we need to survive… plus so much more. Why does the earth have all of the elements that it does? How were all of the different elements created? Do the other planets have the same elements? Were there heavier elements on the earth long ago that have radioactively decayed over time?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

The Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium, and lithium, which would eventually condense into stars, and as time went on, many other elements were formed within these stars. Every element heavier than iron has been produced by supernovas, or exploding stars, since these elements need increased amounts of energy for production. As the universe has aged, these elements have been propagated throughout the universe, including the dust cloud that will condense and form our sun and planets. If our solar system were located elsewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy, then Earth would not have acquired the same elemental composition that it has today. The Earth formed around the recently condensed sun as rocky material clumped together, cleaning up its orbital path around the sun. There are 92 naturally occurring elements that compose the earth and these elements bond to form a vast array of minerals.[i]

“Scientists at the Carnegie Institution have found that the mineral kingdom co-evolved with life, and that up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity. The finding, published in American Mineralogist, could aid scientists in the search for life on other planets.”[ii] Clumping material, like asteroids, in the universe appear to have around 60 different types of minerals. Planets with volcanism and water can have up to around 500 different minerals, “however, only on Earth – at least in our solar system – did mineral evolution progress to the next stages.” The activity of the tectonic plates on Earth add to the amount of mineral types, but “of the approximately 4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two-thirds of them are biologically mediated,” and also “principally a consequence of our oxygen-rich atmosphere.” “For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life, Earth’s mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology…One implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological influences beyond Earth.”[iii]

aEarth&planetsA few of the planets in our solar system have some of the same elements as earth, like oxygen, magnesium, calcium, and aluminum. Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements, but without the protection of an atmosphere, it would easily be blown away. Hydrogen is crucial to life, as it is essential for water and water is essential for the evolution of life. The planets and other objects in our solar system should be of similar composition, since they all formed from the same dust cloud, but as the dust cloud was forming many of the lighter elements were blown further from the sun, resulting in the rocky terrestrial planets closer to the sun and the larger gas planets much farther out.

We observe that the radioactive decay of heavier elements to lighters element occurs constant rates. Because the decay rates are constant and known, the ages of rocks, materials, and artifacts can be calculated with certainty. Radiometric dating methods have been confirmed as consistent based on archaeological, archaeoastronomical, geological, and biological research.[iv]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Lisa Gardiner, Elements in the Earth’s Crust, last modified November 13, 2007, Windows to the Universe, http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/geology/crust_elements.html, accessed July 17, 2014.

[ii] Astrobio, Earth’s Mineral Evolution: Mineral Kingdom Has Co-Evolved with Life, November 14, 2008, Astrobiology Magazine, http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/geology/earths-mineral-evolution/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iii] Astrobio, Earth’s Mineral Evolution: Mineral Kingdom Has Co-Evolved with Life, November 14, 2008, Astrobiology Magazine, http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/geology/earths-mineral-evolution/, accessed June 30, 2014.

Elizabeth Howell, Why Complex Mineral Surfaces Could Be Indications of Life, June 9, 2014, Astrobiology Magazine, http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/complex-mineral-surfaces-indications-life/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iv] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

Our Sun – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

As the Bible records, God created the sun on day 4… after the earth. God created the lights in the heavens (including the sun) for signs, seasons, days and years and to give light on the earth.  (Gen 1:14-15) The sun also declares the glory of God. (Psalm 19:1) The sun causes different climates and weather patterns and even “plays a major role in producing clouds.”[i] There are many factors about the sun that make it very important for life on earth.[ii] Naturalistic methods say that the sun is 4.6 billion years old, but that result is based on assumptions about how much hydrogen has fused into helium. Naturalists have to take these results on faith that their assumptions are correct, whereas creationists have faith in the Bible and that God made the sun with the composition of elements that He wanted.[iii]

Many say that our sun is very average and normal. Cosmologist Carl Sagan said, “Where are we? Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”[iv] Ph.D. astronomer Theodore P. Snow stated, “Our star, the sun, is rather ordinary…in many respects then, the sun is a very run-of-the-mill entity.”[v]

In reality, our sun is “brighter than about 85 percent of all stars, and it has more mass than about 90 percent…Our sun is very stable and has small flares, if the flares were bigger they could rip away our atmosphere and fry the earth…A superflare could be deadly, but there is no evidence of any superflares…our sun is very unusual because of this.”[vi] “Sun-like stars normally produce a bright superflare about once a century…a consensus is emerging that our sun is extraordinarily stable.”[vii] Hopefully this stability continues, because Earth is constantly threatened by solar activity which could do tremendous damage to electronics and communications systems, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sun on the OceanA great challenge to naturalistic models is that the sun needs to have been extraordinarily stable throughout its whole life. The young faint sun paradox explains that as the sun has aged, it should now be 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago, so consequently in the past it was dimmer and the earth would have been colder. Astrophysicist Danny Faulkner describes the problem that at 3.8 billion years ago the earth would have been an average temperature of -3° C, which is below freezing.[viii] “Simple energy-balance climate models of the Budyko/Sellers type predict that a small (2–5%) decrease in [current] solar output could result in a runaway glaciation on the Earth. But solar fluxes 25–30% lower early in the Earth’s history apparently did not lead to this result.”[ix] That would have been devastating for life as it was just starting to evolve.

These estimates are in stark contrast to the naturalistic hypotheses. “Geologists note that Earth’s rock record insists that Earth’s average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life.”[x] Naturalistic hypotheses say that “as new forms of life evolved, the mix of gases in Earth’s atmosphere gradually changed. Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth’s atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.”[xi] “While there is some tolerance for deviation, any prolonged deviation from ideal conditions could have led to catastrophic heating or cooling from which the Earth might not have recovered. Venus and Mars are possibly examples of each of these scenarios.”[xii] “The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous.”[xiii]

“James Kasting stated in Nature: ‘Despite all these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved.’ Alicia Newton writes in Nature Geoscience: ‘Challenges for each hypothesis remain, and are likely to remain for some time.’”[xiv]

That paradox is not the only challenge to the naturalistic models. Just like the sun, gas planets, like Jupiter and Neptune, also radiate heat and enough to challenge their 4.5 billion year history. With Jupiter and Neptune radiating more than twice the energy that they receive, they could not have lasted billions of years.[xv]

The sun rotates around its equator and the planets should have supposedly formed revolving around the sun’s equator as well (everything rotating in one disk), but the planets all go around the sun in a disk that is different from the sun’s rotation. This is a big challenge to the nebular theory, as a couple of scientists put it: “we may note that one difficulty common to all solar nebula theories concerns the rotation axis of the sun, which is at 7 degrees to that of the system as a whole. It is not feasible that the rotation axis of the central body could be so inclined to that of the disk or, alternatively, that planets produced within the disk could systematically depart so much from its plane.”[xvi]

The rotation rate of the sun is also a challenge in that it rotates too slowly, and thus, “the angular momentum of the sun is far too small to be consistent with an evolutionary origin.”[xvii] It works like this, “as skaters pull their arms in, they spin faster…When the skaters pull their arms in, the distance from the centre decreases, so they spin faster or else angular momentum would not stay constant [which it has to]. In the formation of our sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would have occurred as the gases allegedly contracted into the centre to form the sun. This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. Actually, our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposed to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis. Evolutionists have tried to solve this problem, but a well-known solar-system scientist, Dr Stuart Ross Taylor, has said in a recent book, ‘The ultimate origin of the solar system’s angular momentum remains obscure.’”[xviii]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] How Clouds Form, August 13, 2013, Climate Education for K – 12, NC State University, https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.cloudformation, accessed June 25, 2014.

[ii] Sun, 2014, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/, accessed June 25, 2014.

Jason Lisle, Ph.D., The Solar System: The Sun, 2013, Acts & Facts 42(7):10-12, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/solar-system-sun/, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iii] Jonathan Sarfati, Age of the Sun, November 13, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/sun-age, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iv] Sagan, Carl, Cosmos, Episode 7, “The Backbone of Night”

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[v] Snow, T.P., Essentials of the Dynamic Universe, 1993, West Publishing Co, p. 256.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[vi] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[vii] Seife, Charles, “Thank Our Lucky Star,” 1999, New Scientist 2168:15.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[viii] Danny Faulkner, The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, August 2001, Journal of Creation 15 (2):3-4, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-young-faint-sun-paradox-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system, accessed June 20, 2014.

[ix] Caldiera, K. and Kasting, J.F., Susceptibility of the early Earth to irreversible glaciation caused by carbon dioxide clouds, Nature 359:226–228, 1992.Michael J. Oard, Is the faint young sun paradox solved?, August 2011, Journal of Creation 25(2):17-19, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef5, accessed June 25, 2014.

[x] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System, 1998, Acts & Facts 27(6), Institute for Creation research, https://www.icr.org/article/429/, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xi] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System, 1998, Acts & Facts 27(6), Institute for Creation research, https://www.icr.org/article/429/, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xii] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, August 2001, Journal of Creation 15(2): 3-4, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-young-faint-sun-paradox-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xiii] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System, 1998, Acts & Facts 27(6), Institute for Creation research, https://www.icr.org/article/429/, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xiv] Kasting, J.F., Faint young sun redux, Nature 464:688, 2010.

Newton, A., Warming the early Earth, Nature Geoscience 3:458, 2010.

Michael J. Oard, Is the faint young sun paradox solved?, August 2011, Journal of Creation 25(2):17-19, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef5, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xv] Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

[xvi] Dormand, John R., and Woolfson, Michael M., The Origin of the Solar System: The Capture Theory, 1989, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 48.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[xvii] Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

[xviii] Jonathan Sarfati, The sun: our special star, December 1999, Creation 22(1):27-31, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-sun-our-special-star, accessed June 25, 2014.

Our Sun – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

When you look at it, the sun, it seems very close. However, light from the sun takes 8 minutes to get from the sun to the earth. The sun is so big, you could take around one million earths and fit them into the size of the sun. The sun is the closest star to Earth at a distance of 93 million miles.[i] Our sun is considered an average star, although very special to our solar system in many ways. Not only does it provide light to the earth, it provides heat for the planet as well. How old is the sun? How did the sun form? How did the earth form around the sun? How has the sun changed over time?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Sun and Prominences Around 4.6 billion years ago, the sun was formed out of a huge cloud of dust and gas. Most of these gases were condensed into the center of the cloud, due to gravity and other external forces. The condensing of the gases within this cloud made it very hot and allowed the fusion reactions to begin, lighting up the sun and giving off the energy which is so essential for the earth as we know it. The leftover matter of this cloud, further away from the sun, coalesced into our planets.[ii]

The SunThe sun is the largest object in our solar system, but is simply referred to as, and rightfully so, an “ordinary” or “medium” sized star. The sun contains about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium and the last 2% is composed of heavier elements.[iii]  The age has been calculated to about 4.6 billion years based on the methods of helioseismology, which examines the rate of fusion today and determines how long the sun has been burning.[iv] Regions of the sun rotate around its axis at different rates, around its equator, the sun rotates every 25.4 days, but near the north and south poles it takes 36 days to rotate. At the core of the sun, temperatures can reach up to 28 million degrees Fahrenheit.

The sun is expected to be around for about 10 billion years. Since the sun is approximately 4.6 billion years old, it has used up about half of the hydrogen that it has in its core. Eventually, it is going to run out of hydrogen, but before that it will swell into a red giant star which will then envelope and destroy the whole earth.

An interesting conundrum, the young sun paradox, was first brought up by Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972, which says that the sun was dimmer in the past and therefore the earth would have been colder. But geology has shown that the earth was warmer in the past than we would be anticipate, because, for the majority of its existence it has had liquid water. Complex interactions with larger oceans, less clouds, and life evolving (which influenced the gases of the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect), kept the earth sufficiently warm and stable.[v] One researcher says, “we show that the paradox is definitely not as challenging as was believed over the past 40 years. While we can’t say definitively what the atmosphere looked like back then without more geological evidence, it is certainly not a stretch at all with our model to get a warm early Earth that would have been hospitable to life.”[vi]

From a naturalistic standpoint, the Sun’s Angular Momentum, or lack thereof, seems to be a challenge. The more mass in the center (like the sun), the faster it should spin, but we observe that the sun rotates very slowly. One hypothesis suggests that there was originally more mass in the center of our protostar, but during the T Tauri stage much of the mass was expelled from the center, slowing the inner rotation rate. Another hypothesis is that the planets may have migrated towards or away from the sun during their formation and thus changing the rotation rates. Some even suggest that an extra gas giant planet, or what makes up the Kuiper Belt, may have originally been closer to the sun, but may have been catastrophically expelled from the solar system.[vii]

During the developing solar system, there would have been an incredible amount of chaos; objects were impacting each other everywhere. The beginning of the solar system was very turbulent and catastrophic, but over time, the largest objects (now planets) gained dominance and cleaned up our solar system to make it the way it is today. Planets, or moons, rotating too slow or too fast or in strange directions or even revolving in random fashion is most certainly due to all of the tumultuous impacts and gravitational interactions of a vast myriad of early solar system objects. With so many variables, it is difficult (if not practically impossible) to give an exact answer to every strange movement in the solar system today, let alone the universe. However, scientists are constantly learning more and more and arriving at satisfactory answers. Our understanding will only get better. What should not happen is to simply lie down amidst the overwhelming amount of information and resort to saying, “oh, we can’t figure it out, so God just did it that way.” That perspective only impedes the progress of science.

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Sun: Read More, last updated May 5, 2014, NASA, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=OverviewLong, accessed June 25, 2014.

[ii] Dr. Cathy Imhoff, The Sun, 2014, Scholastic, http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/sun-0, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iii] The Sun, 2013, Nine Planets, http://nineplanets.org/sol.html, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iv] Jonathan Sarfati, Age of the Sun, November 13, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/sun-age, accessed June 25, 2014.

[v] Andrea Thompson, Clouds May Hold Key to Why Early Earth Didn’t Freeze Over, March 31, 2010, Space.com, http://www.space.com/8118-clouds-hold-key-early-earth-didnt-freeze.html, accessed June 25, 2014.

“Why Earth is not an ice ball: Possible explanation for faint young sun paradox,” Purdue University, ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm, accessed June 25, 2014.

[vi] CU study shows how early Earth kept warm enough to support life, July 9, 2013, University of Colorado Boulder, http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/07/09/cu-study-shows-how-early-earth-kept-warm-enough-support-life, accessed June 25, 2014.

[vii] Origin of the Solar System, Geol212: Planetary Geology Fall 2014, University of Maryland, Department of Geology, http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol212/lectures/26a.html, accessed June 26, 2014.

Tobias Chant Owen, Solar System, last updated April 11, 2014, Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/553008/solar-system/242068/Solution-to-the-angular-momentum-puzzle, accessed June 26, 2014.