Faith in the Big Bang; Part 4

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

We continue to delve into the issue of matter organizing itself by natural processes in the vacuum of space. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same. In layperson’s terms, this means disorder will increase in a closed system. This bit is important so I will underline it. All of evolution is dependent upon the violation of this law. We see proof of entropy increasing all around us. Energy is added to house shingles or the hood of a car via direct sunlight, or weather, and what happens? Disorder. The breaking down of matter. Decay. This is as natural as can be, and without intelligence acting upon a system, complexity or additional information is never observed to occur. Yet, this is exactly what we are taught, and expected to believe happened over and over and over for 13 billion years in order to to bring about our existence.

If the Big Bang happened, imagining the explosion, and inertia, and vectors in frictionless space. What would the result be? If we pretend that it wasn’t a theory, and asked scientists to assume an explosion happened in a vacuum, how would they illustrate it?

There would be an outer rim of fast moving matter. With no matter ahead of it to collide with, the initial explosion would never slow.
Now, to produce a star, gas would have to: stop flowing outward,
then begin moving in circles, then rotating gas would have to contract or move close together – one would have to explain how linear motion required for the expanse that exists somehow changed into angular momentum.

A quantity of gas in frictionless space moving forward is way too stable for any of this to happen.

Gas in space which was circling would fly apart. Evolutionist Hawit’s research disproves the possibility of gas clumping. Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He was not a creationist. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet. This opinion agrees with observable science. If you agree, you are agreeing with science, and not with evolution, just to make a point. This means stellar evolution is not science.

We must consider another if-then question. It is quite simple. If stars cannot form naturally, then why are there trillions of them? Does God not become more obvious, and not less, once we examine real science? If so, then why are they teaching our kids that 13 billion year old stellar evolution is a fact? The answer… what would they replace it with? God? Certainly not.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

Advertisements

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 3

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Click here for part 1.

Click here for part 2.

Part three must now begin with the assumptions that an initial singularity explosion has taken place, and created outward racing particles. And as illustrated in part 2 of our series, we must assume that these outward racing particles have somehow violated the laws of physics, and have begun to change direction and swirl into gas clouds, so that they may develop into stars. These clouds must grow in density in the vacuum of space,  but simultaneously must be hurling through space to account for the vast expansion needed to explain seemingly infinite galaxies. We have learned that both of these prior situations are impossible based on reason and logic, regardless of the time variable, and furthermore require faith in something akin to the opposite of natural law. But in order to follow the process of the Big Bang theory, and consider what comes next, we will assume these steps somehow have taken place.

1. At this stage, there are a couple things to note:

a. Gas in outerspace is so rare, that it is more of a vacuum than any laboratory vacuum on earth.
b. There is no gas on the periodic table that clumps together! So, neither helium nor hydrogen would clump together. Gas always expands, pushes apart. Always.
c. This means the gas from the big bang would have been even less likely to clump together in outer-space. It is the universe’s great vacuum, and as such, provides the worst possible environment for gas clouds to gain any sort of density at all.

I can say with certainty, that the idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form a star is science fiction. It is like fog forming itself into tight patterns, except exceedingly more problematic. As an experiment, place a drop of food coloring in water. stir it up (or wait a minute, as it will disperse on its own),  to simulate the entropy of an outward explosion. Now wait, and stare at that glass of water, and time how long it takes for the food coloring dye to clump back together into a tight ball or drop again.

When that happens, try and imagine the same experiment in a vacuum… with air. You will then have some idea of how probable star formation is.

An existing star does have gravity, and can pull in other gases. However, forming one is the difficulty, not the fact that it exists. Natural processes cannot do this. Gas cannot build up enough mutual gravity to bring it together in any amount, much less those vast amounts needed for star formation. For perspective, keep in mind scientists think first generation stars were 800 to 1000 times larger than our sun.

2. Careful analysis reveals there is not enough matter within a gas cloud to produce a star. Again, me must respect how utterly massive stars are. Mass is key here, and clouds verses stars are like apples and oranges.

3. A more complex notion is that there isn’t enough time proposed. Evolutionists often scrutinize the creationist timeline as an impossibility, which never bothered us seeing as how our model includes the creator of the heavens and the earth, the only logical explanation for what we see. But they don’t often publicly admit that their model contains its own time crunch, which calls into question everything about how to date the stars.  We have stars that based on a 400% red shift and a calculated distance from earth, should be approximately 15 billion years old. The theory calls for stars to form after the first 5 billion years. This means that the singularity and first explosion must have happened 5 billion before this, or our methods for dating stars is far off the mark. This is problematic in a 15 billion year timetable. This issue,  in conjunction with the need for random chance to cause order, is why the age of the universe continues to grow, as if the magic element of time will eventually solve the puzzle. The math is wrong, or the technique for dating is wrong.

This is not the only evolutionist time crunch problem. 1st generation stars are supposed to be big, burn bright, and die fast, creating new stars and new elements when going supernova. This theory is the supposed catalyst for chemical evolution, where we try to convince the world that the rest of the elements on the periodic table were formed from these supernova explosions from only hydrogen and helium. But we see supposed 1st generation stars still today. Evolutionists tout it as proof they were right about their existence, however, we must ask if they should be there at all?

But they are made new all the time, right? Good question, and I will answer by reminding or teaching the reader that we have never witnessed a star form. They do try to teach how it happens, again because they must push a theory. Consider these quotes: “The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.”—*Martin Harwit, “Books Reviews,” Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.

“There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

“Basically there does not appear to be enough matter in any of the hydrogen clouds in the Milky Way that would allow them to contract [into stars] and be stable. Apparently our attempt to explain the first stages in star evolution has failed.”—*Garrit Verschuur, Starscapes (1973), p. 102.

4. Observation of gas clouds in space show them expanding. Gas clouds in space expand. They do not contract. With not enough matter, and expansion as a factor, this is not a recipe for success. Hence the devastating and truthful quotes above about the science of cosmology.

We will discuss more on stars later, but any one of these points would discredit the idea of stellar evolution. I will summarize the problem this way: The core of a star, in this case the first star, must generate a temperature to 10 million Kelvin degrees, to create nuclear fusion, at which point it can become stable. So,  from nothing a group of sub atomic particles must explode out, then coalesce, despite a tenancy to repel, and somehow clump to gain such heat and density as to generate nuclear fusion, so it can supernova, and create more stars as well as all elements in the periodic table. Tell me again how this is science and not faith?

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 2

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Click here for Part 1.

In Part 1 we examined why the initial explosion cannot randomly create itself, and ignite itself in a vacuum. If you stare at nothing in a vacuum, whether it is for 5 minutes, or 13 billion years, no amount of wishful thinking will make it turn into a universe. However, for arguments sake, we must assume that this first impossible moment occurred in order to examine how the next stage of the Big Bang Theory fails. So let us pretend, as modern science does, that an explosion of nothing from a single dense singularity in the vacuum of space has exploded outward sending newly and spontaneously created hydrogen and helium atoms into the void. Based on observable laws of science, what do we know would happen?

First we must make clear what the theory depends on, in order to progress towards the formation of stars. The theory necessitates that these outward flying sub atomic particles must migrate towards one another and begin to form gas clouds in separate spots all over the universe. As I write that out, my hope is that it sounds as ridiculous to you while reading it as it does to me. Perhaps this is why when they teach children of the theory, they present mostly the end result, and do not teach the required process to achieve it. I believe most second graders would scratch their head at the idea of air coming together, rather than dispersing in a vacuum. The problems with this stage are summarized as follows, assuming the matter created contained enough material to begin a universe, and the explosion allowed the particles to break free from the gravity of a singularity:

1. There is no way to unite particles after an explosion; they would continually and forever get farther apart as they left the central explosion

2. Since there would be no matter, space would be frictionless, therefore there would be no way to ever slow any of the particles (3rd law of thermodynamics).

3. Particles would maintain the same speed and vector… forever. There is no way to change direction of even one particle, to make it begin circling another.

4.Laws of physics and angular momentum dictate that not one particle would change direction and the formation of a cluster of atoms, and then a gaseous cloud would be necessary to begin stellar evolution, or the evolution of stars.

5. Science must ask about the origination of atomic structures. From vectored sub-atomic particles into complex atoms (even hydrogen is complex at the sub atomic level). Considering the mass of a first generation star, we must unite the first sub-atomic particles, but also generate new ones. This isn’t even chemical evolution yet, which will be addressed later. This is simply the generation of enough hydrogen and helium in one place to gain a mass required for a star, but in trillions of places at once.

So what we have, all told, is the violation of the first three laws of thermodynamics right off the bat, along with contradictions to known physics principles, such as the law of conservation of angular momentum. And from these particles, the theory hopes for gradually outward racing particles to begin circling one another. These must form atoms, and change directions further still, towards one another, to create gas clouds which then produce the first star or stars.

This dependence upon the absurd is, in my opinion, an embarrassment to science. To consider such events in real time and space is laughable. I would remind the reader that all of this conjecture has come about to support evolution, because we “cannot let a divine foot in the door.” (Richard Lewontin). Reason compels us to ask ‘if-then’ questions, and if man evolved, then the earth must have evolved before it, and if that, then the solar system, and so on, until you become so dependent upon making the theory work that science drifts into philosophy and religion, and we are forced into an indoctrination that every component of the natural world arrived via the same process. If only one step is proven a failure, reason must dictate that all following processes leading to the arrival of man are likewise doomed. So what we witness is the scrambling to prop up or maneuver around a failing faith by its loyal followers.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote

 

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 1

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

First a definition:

1) The rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

2) a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density – (Merriam-Webster)

3) An effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe…Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a “singularity” and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don’t know for sure… – (www.big-bang-theory.com)

Please notice in definition 3 the use of phrases like, “effort to explain”, and “we don’t know for sure”. There are many of these when you consider the science. More I found were, “a theory deducing the cataclysmic birth of the universe”, and “leading explanation of how the universe began”. After http://www.space.com states it as their leading theory, they begin with statements like this: “In the first second after the universe began, the surrounding temperature was about 10 billion degrees.”

10,000,000,000 degrees. Stated as fact. And when they teach children natural sciences in school, these numbers, these “facts” are taught, remembered, written down, and tested on. 10 billion degrees. 13.8 billion years ago. Make no mistake, since it is the “best explanation” science has, it is taught as truth. If not taught, the prevailing question asked by science professors is, “Well, what are you going to replace it with?”

The Big Bang Theory is mostly based on math, red shift, waves found in space, and lots of assumption.  If you can find a text book that gets specific, you will find that “nothing” packed tightly together  and then exploded outward containing hydrogen and helium into frictionless space.  If space was full of anything else, it wouldn’t be the beginning, so logic dictates this moment of nothing at all to something. The spontaneous generation of matter. It is interesting to note, the person who made it popular was George Gamow, who was a science fiction writer in 1948.  It is unfortunate that science fiction has taken such a strong role in what we force our children to learn. He campaigned using cartoons, which he stated really helped sell the theory.

So you take these huge numbers, 13.8 billion years, 10 billion degrees… and nothingness explodes out.  Over the next several articles we will look at the assumptions that must take place for this to end up as a universe.  Today is step one:

The actual big bang explosion:
1.  You are asking people to believe that a tiny bit of “nothing” blew up and created all matter.  This is based on theoretical extremes and calculations.  Nothing more.  and it sounds like the fairy tale that it is.
2.  Nothingness cannot pack together. It has no way to push itself in close, and no barometer for density, as it contains no parts. Looking out into a void, how would one imagine a single point of nothingness gaining density. Just this alone rails against physical laws.
3.  A vacuum has no density. It is stated that the singularity was dense before it exploded, but a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4. There is no ignition.  No fire if no match.  As we all know from studying actual science, a fire needs three things to exist: Fuel (there is none), flammable gas (there is none), and heat (which would be caused by the friction of nothing, so in essence, none could exist). Couldn’t be chemical, because there were no chemicals.  They surmise the event would have been nuclear, but if you have no atoms, you cannot have a nuclear blast.
5. No way to expand nothing.
6.  Nothingness cannot produce heat.  Intense heat supposedly caused nothingness to turn to protons, neutrons, and electrons… but a vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself.  It would be purely magic if an empty void changed itself to matter. Again, we have no energy source for this to occur.
7. Technically speaking, the calculations of what needed to happen are too exacting.  In layman’s terms, it means the math is too perfect. The narrow mathematical limits of a singularity’s expansion are such that its too narrow to have happened.  R H Dickey wrote gravitation and the universe,and in it he states that if the expansion was .1 percent faster it would have gone too fast, and if .1 percent slower it would have re-collapsed.
8.  Roger L St Peter in 1974 developed math stating that if a big bang happened, it would collapse forming a theoretical black hole, and could not have happened.  In essence you would have one theoretical action swallowing another one.
9.  The theory states that anti matter would have to be created in equal amounts.  what is well known to physicists is that there is not enough anti matter in the universe, and that antimatter immediately destroys matter, therefor would have destroyed any matter created, again theoretically.

So before getting out of the gate in our secular dependence upon explaining everything sans-God,  there are certainly some issues with the ridiculous moment that nothing exploded out to start forming the universe with a few sub atomic particles.  When examined closely, and with reason, it does not, and should never hold water.  But as Gamow said, cartoons may help.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

 

Diamonds Have Carbon-14; Why Is This Important?

If I told you that the RATE Team found Carbon-14 in diamonds would you care? Maybe you should.

Why is this important to you, you may ask? It may change your perception of history. You see, diamonds were thought to be millions if not billions of years old. Academia teaches students that coal takes millions of years to form, along with great heat and lots of pressure. This organic plant material is mostly carbon, and is an energy source we use every day in the world, typically dated to 300 million years old. An assumption based on the laughable geologic column, index fossils, and the presupposition that the evolutionary timetable is a fact. Hopefully, if you have been following along, and/or doing your own research you know better by now, or at the very least are questioning it.

Diamonds, a hardened form of carbon, is said to take even longer to form, often with a timetable of billions being attributed to them.

And who is the RATE Team? Only your scientific Christian heroes! A team of eight Christians who are all doctors of various fields that set out on an 8 year scientific journey to verify that our concept of geological, evolutionary time is grossly inaccurate. If you’d like details on this journey, I highly recommend reading Thousands not Millions. For our purposes, all you need to know is that these highly trained, meticulous scientists discovered carbon-14 in both “300 million” year old coal, and also in diamonds. If you know anything about carbon-14, you already know this is impossible.

Why shouldn’t there be carbon-14 in it? Good question. The answer is simple, and I will put it in layperson’s terms so that we can all enjoy the dumpster fire that is evolutionary theory. As living things interact with our atmosphere, we absorb carbon-14, a radioactive form of the element that breaks down slowly at a speed that we call a half-life. According to the creation model, there was most certainly less carbon-14 in the atmosphere prior to the flood, but we will get to that in a minute. As we live, breathe, exchange air with the world, we reach an equilibrium with the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, but when we die, we are no longer breathing it into our cells, and so it decays from our remains at a specific rate.

The interesting thing about carbon-14 is that it decays fast enough such that it can only be detected for a few 10’s of thousands of years. With modern equipment, potentially 50,000 to 100,000 years, but with a large margin for error. Coal, our “300 million year old” carbon, is supposed to be 3000 times older than any age at which we can detect carbon-14 before it reduces to an indeterminate amount. And yet, what do we find? Carbon-14. In 300,000,000 year old carbon we find something that cannot be detected past 50 or 100 thousand years.

Now, wait, you may ask? What about the fact that creationists claim the bible dictates a world that’s only a few thousand years old? This is not a problem, as the atmosphere was much more favorable in pre-flood conditions. It fits the model beautifully, pointing to a pre-flood earth with more protection from the sun, and less carbon-14 in the atmosphere. You see, like all dating methods, evolutionists assume way too much. One assumption is that the carbon-14 levels have remained constant. But consider, if the pre-flood world is exchanging less carbon-14 with plants, humans, and animals such as dinosaurs, then when tested, those specimens will seems much older, because much less carbon was there to begin with. Also, we must remember that most specimens tested were buried in Noah’s flood, and therefore do come from this pre-flood environment. And lets not fool ourselves. Solving for a discrepancy of 20,000 years is a much easier task than trying to ignore the glaring 299,900,000 year that evolutionists are stuck with.

That being said, it should of course be even more inconceivable that diamonds would hold carbon-14, since it takes a billion years to form, and should have leached all traces out long ago. But I am sure you have already guessed what our scientific heroes found in the carefully tested diamond specimens. That’s correct. Carbon-14.

I must of course qualify the statements by using adjectives such as ‘carefully’, and ‘meticulous’, because when results do not fit the theory, the demagoguery and ad hominem  attacks ensue. Not real scientists because they believe in God, must have tainted the samples, etc. These attacks are launched at men with impeccable credentials, but I would have you check for yourself, rather than take my word.

This carbon-14 is an example of a ‘limiting factor’ like I mentioned in the article 35 Years or 2.6 Million Years. This means that despite common theories, it takes much less time to create coal and diamonds in nature than previously thought. And the flood was catastrophic enough to cause the geological conditions we see today, and explains a great deal of the earth’s features.

Consider this as well: Scientists in a lab made coal in 6 hours. At a different time, in 1982 the British made oil in 10 minutes. Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University triumphantly stated, “We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do.” This is yes another stellar example of our presuppositions determining our interpretations. Another, more obvious conclusion, if one were not blinded by evolutionary theory would be to instead  triumphantly announce, “It doesn’t take nearly as long as we thought for coal and oil to form!”

Please share with friends and family, and as always feel free to ask questions. We will find the answers together. I wanted to leave you with one final truth however, before your curiosity prompts you to ask. The answer is yes, they have found carbon-14 in dinosaur bones as well, along with soft tissue, and blood cells. We are not holding our breath for the scientific community to adjust their timeline accordingly.

35 years or 2.6 million years?

There is an intimidating section of science for believers known as radiometric dating. The presumption of an old Earth came long before this discovery, invented by those who wished to ‘save the sciences from Moses.’ Radiometric dating has since been utilized to support this presupposition. By definition it is a method of dating geological or archaeological specimens by determining the relative proportions of particular radioactive isotopes present in a sample. In layman’s terms, this simply means measuring how fast something has decayed in order to determine how old it is. I have debated many evolutionists, and in the end, many will never be able to get past this idea that the world is billions of years old. To suggest otherwise would be anathema. It is as true to them as stating water is wet, and has been beaten into their psyche from early on, from the first kids books that say millions and millions of years ago…

I remember the shocking freedom of letting that assumption go, and how the facts we observe so easily fell in line with biblical truth after that. It was truly like waking from an oppressive dream, where nothing fit, but the ‘authorities’ of science and education and television and magazines were all telling you it was so.

This is what those authorities won’t tell you. Science is filled with limiting factors that exempt creation from being old. Most dating methods point to a young earth. Only the ones that can be shown to align with our evolutionary understanding of the geologic column are kept and published, and taught. These methods are ripe with assumptions, and results are cherry picked to align with what the observer ‘knows’ already. I could write for days on dating methods, and it is such an interesting topic, that I am sure more articles will follow. But I owe you the reader more than just my opinion and conjecture. So let’s get a little more specific.

Today we will examine potassium-argon dating. Again, I want this to be understandable to as many readers as possible, so very briefly, radioactive potassium usually from igneous rock (cooled lava) decays, and argon is a byproduct of this reaction. This method is widely used as a dating method all over the Earth. Now, without getting into overly complicated chemistry, or methodology, we can simply use common sense to ascertain whether or not this is a viable method for determining specific dates.

Below is a chart from samples taken and tested from the eruption of the 1980 Mount Saint Helen’s volcano. These are samples carefully tested from a volcano we saw happen with our own eyes on May 18th of that year. Using our ‘trusty’ potassium argon dating method, used the world over for proving that fossil layers fall within geologic parameters, we arrived at the following dates:

AGE-RadioDate-Fig13-HelensChart-400x300

 

This study indicated that, barring tolerances, the rock formed from that 1980 explosion was between 300,000 years old and 3,400,000 million years old. We saw it form 35 years ago!

This error is extraordinary, but what is beyond comprehension is that rather than call in to question the methodology, science has instead thrown out the results, and continued to utilize the method. I could ask a 5 year old, “what do these results tell you, considering a large part of science as we know it consists of observation?” It would be clear to anyone being intellectually honest that though still valuable in determining composition and how geological events relate to each other, the method’s ability to determine geological time was an abysmal failure.

There are results like this from other events as well; Hawaii, the Philippines. This means that we assume the results are bad when they do not correlate with what we know, but when we do not know, the results are accepted, based on our assumptions. I would ask you, is that science? is that an observable, demonstrable, repeatable result? Should they teach the geologic column, index fossils, dating accuracy based on these results?

But they do. And they start young. And by the time you are in college you have heard the mantra of millions of years so often that you have become indoctrinated. And if someone then comes along and tells you, the bible is accurate in its chronology, you might scoff in derision at the implication.

What does our bible say about this possibility? That the prevailing opinion would state things have continued on the same way all along, i.e. uniformitarianism. That there was no evidence of God’s hand upon the earth?  I would point to this warning.

2 Peter 3:3-4 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” 

____________

UPDATE:  – Rock collected for radiometric dating was pulled from Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, from cooled magma flow from the years 1949, 1954, and 1975. This was tested and an age of 3,908,000,000 years was observed. Actual date of fifty years vs 3.9 billion. This is a discrepancy of 7.8 billion percent.

 

Is it arrogance to think you’re special?

PaleBlueDot
Pale Blue Dot

Let me start by saying I don’t believe interpretation of facts will bring people to the Lord. I think that is a Holy Spirit thing. My hope is to grow a ministry that affords people the ability to stand fast in what I consider authoritative scripture. Today, we will address the chances of other earth like planets supporting life, as a follow up to my UFO’s and God article.

https://jrcooper.org/2016/01/20/ufos-and-god/

Several years back NASA published a famous picture of earth from space (shown here) showing just how not-special we were, a distant spec among millions of others. It was named ‘the pale blue dot’. Promoter of anti-creation sentiment Carl Sagan famously commented, “Consider again that dot [Earth]. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

Well, of course the creationist community was in a scramble, trying to prove that this little blue marble wasn’t so matter-of-fact, and insignificant. After all, our bibles tell us we are a special creation, made in His image. Despite the many problems with the big bang, and the several brands of evolution that must exist to generate life

[Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”,
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds,
and  Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter]

the crux of Sagan’s criticism was that the odds of other planets like ours existing goes up exponentially with our understanding of the vastness of the universe. This would seem like reasonable logic, but I don’t mind telling you, this has been debunked, and very soundly at that.

Consider odds, since that is all this is based on, conjecture that it simply must be. First science began to determine what factors were needed to have a planet capable of supporting the diversity of life we find here. Abundant factors were apparent: We must be within a galactic habitable zone, be around the right type of star, protected by gas giants, distance from sun, nearly circular orbit, oxygen atmosphere, a terrestrial planet, large amounts of water, one moon the correct size (I could do an amazing write up on the extraordinary moon alone),correct mass, iron core for magnetism, proper thickness of earth’s crust, plate tectonics, heat within its interior, and on and on, and furthermore they are all factors that must be met at one place and at one time, or the possibility of life fails. Just to extrapolate a bit on one factor alone, we can consider the sun. It is technically classified as a spectral type G-2 dwarf main sequence star. If it were less massive, like 90% of the stars in our galaxy, the habitable zone would be smaller, and we’d have to be closer to remain within livable boundaries, but increased gravity would lock our planets rotation into synchronization to its orbit, forcing one side of the earth to continually face the sun, exposed to radiation and heat, while the other side would lay in a frozen state of perpetual ice. To say we existed within a delicate balance would be the scientific understatement of the century.

Of course, as one considers this, one could still say, “Yes it would be rare, but hey, we are talking about the whole universe here. Billions and billions of stars, right?” So we will consider actual odds. In an attempt to estimate the probability of attaining this perfect combination of factors, a conservative 1 in 10 chance was applied to each. Once you multiply the probabilities of 20 factors needed, you get 10 to the -15, or one one thousandth of one one trillionth. Some estimate there may be as many as 200 separate factors, but  I’ll let you do the math. Once those odds were overcome, we would have to then consider odds of random chance creating the order necessary to produce a complex living cell, which are even more tumultuous odds for evolutionists, as it is mathematically impossible. If you wish to read a short article to provide insight on that, here is a link by Dr. Henry Morris, an author and apologist.
http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

The bible says God stretched out the heavens, and further states, “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.” Psalms 147:4. Space is vast, to be sure, which naturally fills us with awe and wonder. But depending on perspective, some look up at the night sky, and feel insignificant, like Mr. Sagan. Others look up and and feel blessed at how special they are, and can be nothing but grateful that the Lord placed us under all that glory, one of many ways He chose to love us.