WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? By David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.

WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW

ABOUT THE UNIVERSE?

By David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.Email [email protected]


ABOUT THE UNIVERSE?

By David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.Email [email protected]

HOW DO YOU

KNOW WHAT

YOU KNOW?Or at least what you think you know?

HOW DO YOU

KNOW WHAT

YOU KNOW?Or at least what you think you know?

????

???? ??

??

WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK:WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK:

Evolution is science...Evolution is science...

Creation and Intelligent Design are religion.


TIME

EVOLUTION:Initial Disorganization

with later increase in complexity and unlimited diversification.

Not just change, but change in the direction of increasing complexity.

Simple to Complex.

EVOLUTION:Initial Disorganization

with later increase in complexity and unlimited diversification.

Not just change, but change in the direction of increasing complexity.

Simple to Complex.

Evolutionary “Tree”All life came from one simple cell

TIME

Creationist “Forest”All life came from multiple complex ancestors.

CREATION:Initial Complexity

with later deterioration and diversification within limits.

Not just change, but change in the direction of decreasing complexity.

Complex to Simple.

CREATION:Initial Complexity

with later deterioration and diversification within limits.

Not just change, but change in the direction of decreasing complexity.

Complex to Simple.

1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike.

1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike.

2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.3. Logic.

I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it.

3. Logic. I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it.

4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry.

4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry.

5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery!

5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery!

6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know this car will give you years of faithful service!

6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know this car will give you years of faithful service!

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING?WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING?WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING?WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING?

THE SCIENTIFIC METHODTHE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

1. Define the problem. What do you want to know?

(E.g. “Does music affect how plants grow?”)

2. Gather information about the subject.

(AUTHORITY)

3. Formulate a hypothesis.

4. Devise a way to test the hypothesis.

5. Observe the results of the test. (EXPERIENCE)

6. Draw a conclusion (INDUCTIVE LOGIC) and report

your results so others can repeat the test.

REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW”

REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW”

IS IT BECAUSE:IS IT BECAUSE:

(1) They claim to have personal experience, OR(2) They appeal to an authority we trust, OR(3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy?

(1) They claim to have personal experience, OR(2) They appeal to an authority we trust, OR(3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy?

OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing?

OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing?

Past + Non-Repeatable +

Eyewitness Account = HISTORY

Past + Non-Repeatable + No Eyewitnesses

= BELIEF

Present + Repeatable + Observable = SCIENCE

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE:THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE:

1. No living person has personal experience.1. No living person has personal experience.

2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the

Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics.

2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the

Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics.

SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING?Through LOGIC ONLY.

SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING?Through LOGIC ONLY.

1. INDUCTIVE. Look at many phenomena and try to discover a

pattern that points to a general principle. Inductive logic tries to determine the most reasonable (most likely) conclusion.

This is the heart of the scientific method.

1. INDUCTIVE. Look at many phenomena and try to discover a

pattern that points to a general principle. Inductive logic tries to determine the most reasonable (most likely) conclusion.

This is the heart of the scientific method.

2. DEDUCTIVE. Start with general principles accepted as true

and apply them to specific cases. Deductive logic tries to establish absolute

truth, i.e., the conclusion MUST be true.

2. DEDUCTIVE. Start with general principles accepted as true

and apply them to specific cases. Deductive logic tries to establish absolute

truth, i.e., the conclusion MUST be true.

THE TWO TYPES OF LOGICTHE TWO TYPES OF LOGIC

Based on the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks, who believed that logic always leads to truth.

Testing was unimportant to them.

Most famous Greek philosopher: Aristotle (inventor of the logic still used today),

whose ideas were taught as fact for about 2,000 years throughout Europe,

west Asia, and Africa.

Based on the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks, who believed that logic always leads to truth.

Testing was unimportant to them.

Most famous Greek philosopher: Aristotle (inventor of the logic still used today),

whose ideas were taught as fact for about 2,000 years throughout Europe,

west Asia, and Africa.

“SCIENCE” UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES:“SCIENCE” UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES:

“Scientific” ideas of Aristotle TAUGHT AS FACT in European Universities for 2000 YEARS:

“Scientific” ideas of Aristotle TAUGHT AS FACT in European Universities for 2000 YEARS:

1. The earth is the center of the solar system.Falsified by Copernicus.

2. Heavier objects fall faster.Falsified by Galileo.

3. All objects possess an innate tendency to come to rest.Falsified by Newton.

1. The earth is the center of the solar system.Falsified by Copernicus.

2. Heavier objects fall faster.Falsified by Galileo.

3. All objects possess an innate tendency to come to rest.Falsified by Newton.

EXAMPLES OF INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FAULTY LOGIC

EXAMPLES OF INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FAULTY LOGIC

Honest scientists will not claim to have absolutely proven ANYTHING (even the Law

of Gravity!) using the scientific method.

All we can legitimately say is that every time we have observed something in the past it’s always worked the same

way, so we expect that it will continue to work the same way in the future.

Honest scientists will not claim to have absolutely proven ANYTHING (even the Law

of Gravity!) using the scientific method.

All we can legitimately say is that every time we have observed something in the past it’s always worked the same

way, so we expect that it will continue to work the same way in the future.

“PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT”“PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT”

The conclusions of INDUCTIVE logic result from examination of observable phenomena (a posteriori). They are testable and open to

modification.

The premises of DEDUCTIVE logic may come from inductive conclusions, or they may

just be statements accepted as self-evident (a priori). They are

not necessarily the result of testing.

The conclusions of INDUCTIVE logic result from examination of observable phenomena (a posteriori). They are testable and open to

modification.

The premises of DEDUCTIVE logic may come from inductive conclusions, or they may

just be statements accepted as self-evident (a priori). They are

not necessarily the result of testing.

CONTRASTING LOGICCONTRASTING LOGIC

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE:THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE:

There is no way to repeat the beginning of the universe. We have to look at circumstantial evidence to see what seems to be the most

reasonable explanation.

Anyone who claims to know absolutely what happened is not following inductive logic; they

must be using DEDUCTIVE logic only.

But can there be problems with deductive logic?But can there be problems with deductive logic?

If I am at Mount Everest, then I am at the highest mountain in the world.

TRUE.

CONVERSES IN LOGICCONVERSES IN LOGIC

THE CONVERSE:

If I am at the highest mountain in the world, then I am at Mount Everest.

ALSO TRUE.

A converse is reliable ONLYif there is an exact one-to-one match between the “If” and “Then” parts - a

biconditional (“if and only if”).

A converse is NOT reliable if there is more than one possibility.

A converse is NOT reliable if there is more than one possibility.

If I am at Victoria Falls, then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world.

TRUE.

THE CONVERSE:

If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world, then I am at Victoria Falls.

FALSE. (not reliable)

INVALID LOGICINVALID LOGIC

AT ONE OF THE AT ONE OF THE LARGEST WATERFALLSLARGEST WATERFALLS

IF AT VICTORIA FALLS

IF AT NIAGARA FALLS

IF AT ANGEL FALLS

IF AT OTHER LARGE WATER-

FALL

IF AT KAIETEUR FALLS

PROPER LOGIC FLOWPROPER LOGIC FLOW

All teaching of “evolution only” in schools rests on the invalid use of a logical converse.

All teaching of “evolution only” in schools rests on the invalid use of a logical converse.

If I am at Victoria Falls, then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world.

TRUE.

THE CONVERSE:

If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world, then I am at Victoria Falls.

FALSE. (not reliable)

The Invalid Logic of Evolutionary ExclusivismThe Invalid Logic of Evolutionary Exclusivism

If evolution is true, then the universe and life would exist. TRUE.

THE CONVERSE:

If the universe and life exist, then evolution is true.FALSE. (not reliable)

UNIVERSE EXISTS

ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT

ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT

THEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT

THEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT

YOUNG-EARTH CREATION CORRECT

YOUNG-EARTH CREATION CORRECT

SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT

SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT

POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSEPOSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSE

OLD-EARTH CREATION CORRECT

OLD-EARTH CREATION CORRECT

If P is true, then Q is true. (Major premise)P is true. (Minor premise)Therefore, Q is true. (Conclusion)

if P

then Q

To represent a syllogism graphically, anything inside the

inner circle (“if”) is automatically inside the outer circle (“then”).

To represent a syllogism graphically, anything inside the

inner circle (“if”) is automatically inside the outer circle (“then”).

if live in New

Orleans

live in La.

live in U.S.

live on earth

Syllogisms can also be chained (transitive logic).Syllogisms can also be

chained (transitive logic).

DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND SYLLOGISMSDEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND SYLLOGISMS

EVEN WITH CORRECT LOGIC, FALSE PREMISES CAN LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS.

EVEN WITH CORRECT LOGIC, FALSE PREMISES CAN LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS.

All dogs bark. (Or, “If an animal is a dog, then it barks.”)

Fido is a dog.Therefore, Fido barks.

Not if

Fido is a

Basenji!

Not if

Fido is a

Basenji!

Basenjis do not

bark.

If any one of our premises is wrong, then our conclusion is unreliable.

First lineFirst line

Point not on the first line Only one parallel lineOnly one parallel line

BUT IS IT REALLY SELF-EVIDENT? Lobachevskyan and Riemannian geometry say that space is curved,

so there is no such thing as an infinitely long straight line in the sense that we understand “straight.”

BUT IS IT REALLY SELF-EVIDENT? Lobachevskyan and Riemannian geometry say that space is curved,

so there is no such thing as an infinitely long straight line in the sense that we understand “straight.”

One says space is negatively curved so that there are an

infinite number of parallel lines through a point not on a line.

The other says space is positively curved so there are no

parallel lines. All lines intersect at infinity.

EACH OF THE THREE IS THE BASIS OF A DIFFERENT VERSION OF GEOMETRY, BUT NONE CAN BE PROVEN. EACH OF THE THREE IS THE BASIS OF A DIFFERENT

VERSION OF GEOMETRY, BUT NONE CAN BE PROVEN.

POSTULATES - Statements that are taken as self-evident and accepted without proof.

POSTULATES - Statements that are taken as self-evident and accepted without proof.

Euclid’s Parallel Line Postulate says that for any line, there can be only one parallel line through a point not on the first line.

LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.


CREATION:CREATION:EVOLUTION:EVOLUTION:1. Everything must be explainable by purely

natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang,

God’s involvement with nature has been trivial.

Known as either NATURALISM, MATERIALISM, OR ATHEISM.

BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATIONBASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION

1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be.

This is as far as Intelligent Design goes. (The intelligence could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster!) Creation specifies that the intelligence is God.

MATERIALISM: NO GOD ALLOWED!MATERIALISM: NO GOD ALLOWED!

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,

materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the

phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of

investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how

mystifying to the uninitiated.

materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the

phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of

investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how

mystifying to the uninitiated.

because we have a prior commitment, a commitment tobecause we have a prior commitment, a commitment to

Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Richard Lewontin, The New York Review, Jan. 1997Richard Lewontin, The New York Review, Jan. 1997

materialism. materialism.

NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICSNECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS

GODGOD

2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL.


3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL.3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL.

4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT.4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT.

5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT.


6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT.6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT.

1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE.1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE.

What if there is no God? Then the universe would have to be the result of a series of forces, processes, and events operating with no particular purpose for billions of years.

We could call the whole series “evolution,” “quantum fluctuation,” or “accident.” Let’s use

the term “Random Chance,” with the understanding that it represents the whole

multibillion year series of forces, processes, and events.

Let’s see the characteristics that Random Chance would have to have.

What if there is no God? Then the universe would have to be the result of a series of forces, processes, and events operating with no particular purpose for billions of years.

We could call the whole series “evolution,” “quantum fluctuation,” or “accident.” Let’s use

the term “Random Chance,” with the understanding that it represents the whole

multibillion year series of forces, processes, and events.

Let’s see the characteristics that Random Chance would have to have.

IF THERE IS NO GOD, THEN WHAT?IF THERE IS NO GOD, THEN WHAT?

NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICSNECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS

GOD1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE.

GOD1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE.




4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT.




6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT.6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT.

RANDOM CHANCERANDOM CHANCE








6. Nobody made it - SELF- EXISTENT.6. Nobody made it - SELF- EXISTENT.

There is no possibility that some Godlike entity does NOT exist.

1. Only seen by what it does - INVISIBLE.1. Only seen by what it does - INVISIBLE.

IS ALL TRUTH SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE?

IS ALL TRUTH SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE?

Okay, prove scientifically that you love your husband / wife / mother etc.

Okay, prove scientifically that you love your husband / wife / mother etc.

Likewise, our inability to prove there is a God does not mean He does not exist;

Likewise, our inability to prove there is a God does not mean He does not exist;

our inability to prove there is not a God does not mean He does exist.

our inability to prove there is not a God does not mean He does exist.

WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK:WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK:

Evolution is science...Evolution is science...



But in what way is believing in the IMPOSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design But in what way is believing in the

IMPOSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design

Either way it’s a matter of philosophy, not science.Either way it’s a matter of philosophy, not science.

any more scientific than believing in the POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design?

any more scientific than believing in the POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design?




1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes.

a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang,


CREATION:CREATION:EVOLUTION:EVOLUTION:

2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility.

2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation.


EVOLUTION: Natural Processes Only!EVOLUTION: Natural Processes Only!

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded

from science because it is not naturalistic."Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature

magazine, Sept. 1999Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature

magazine, Sept. 1999

“... the theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p.233D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p.233

How many non-barking dogs does it take to show that maybe Fido doesn’t bark?

How many non-barking dogs does it take to show that maybe Fido doesn’t bark?

This is why materialists fight so hard against Intelligent Design. If there is even one thing

that can’t be explained by natural processes, then their fundamental premise is false!

This is why materialists fight so hard against Intelligent Design. If there is even one thing

that can’t be explained by natural processes, then their fundamental premise is false!




2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility.

3. Since evolution has never been seen in human history, it must be very slow. The universe and earth have to be billions of years old.

1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes.

a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang,




3. Creation does not automatically require a specific age. a. Recent Creation: The earth is prob- ably less than 10,000 years old. b. Gap Theory & Progressive Creation: Because evolutionists must know what they are talking about, the earth has to be billions of years old.

2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation.

4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood.

4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood.



5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance.

5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design.



DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON

ANCESTRY?

DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON

ANCESTRY?

4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood.

4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood.



5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance.

5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design.



6. Scientists are the final authority in everything. Which scientists? The ones that agree with you! (At least until they change their minds next week.)

6. Authority. a. Recent Creation: The Bible is the final authority in everything. b. Gap Theory: The Bible is the final authority on most things, except the age of the earth and the origin of death. c. Progressive Creation: The Bible is the final authority only on some spiritual matters.


ABOUT THE UNIVERSE?


ABOUT THE UNIVERSE?

So, back to our first question:

So, back to our first question:

THE SCIENTIFIC METHODTHE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

1. Define the problem. What do you want to know?

(E.g. “Does music affect how plants grow?”)

2. Gather information about the subject.

(AUTHORITY)

3. Formulate a hypothesis.

4. Devise a way to test the hypothesis.

5. Observe the results of the test. (EXPERIENCE)

6. Draw a conclusion (INDUCTIVE LOGIC) and report

your results so others can repeat the test.

Things to Which We Can Directly Apply the Scientific Method:

Things to Which We Can Directly Apply the Scientific Method:

• Chemical composition or magnetic fields of bodies in the solar system. We can analyze either by close flybys or actual landings.• Positions and motions of planets, moons, etc. – direct

telescope observation.• Radiation output, etc. – direct measurements.• Distance to stars up to about 50 light years away – calculated

by parallax.• Chemical composition of the photosphere of sun and stars –

spectroscopic analysis.

Phenomena we can directly observe and test.Phenomena we can directly observe and test.

SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSISSPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSISEach element’s unique arrangement of electrons produces a

pattern (spectrum) of colored lines as its electrons jump between higher and lower energy levels. Lines are bright as

the electrons emit energy or dark as they absorb it.

Above: Black and white graph of the spectrum of hydrogen.

Below: Emission spectra of three common elements showing colors.

Each element’s unique arrangement of electrons produces a pattern (spectrum) of colored lines as its electrons jump

between higher and lower energy levels. Lines are bright as the electrons emit energy or dark as they absorb it.

Above: Black and white graph of the spectrum of hydrogen.

Below: Emission spectra of three common elements showing colors.

Emission spectrum of HydrogenEmission spectrum of Hydrogen Emission spectrum of FluorineEmission spectrum of Fluorine

Emission spectrum of OxygenEmission spectrum of Oxygen

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT’S IN A STAR?HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT’S IN A STAR?• In a laboratory, we see an emission

spectrum of bright lines against a dark background.

• However, the interior of a star is so hot that the electrons are knocked completely away from the atoms. (This is called a plasma.) The star’s light is NOT from electrons jumping between specific energy levels, so it is a continuous white light.

• Light from the interior must pass through the star’s outer regions (its photosphere) on its way to us. This part of the star is not as hot, so some of the atoms do have electrons.

• These electrons absorb specific colors as they move to higher energy levels.

• What we see on earth is like a pho-tographic negative. Instead of an emission spectrum of bright lines against a dark background, we see an absorption spectrum of dark lines against a bright background. This enables us to identify elements present in the star’s outer layers.

Things We Cannot Legitimately be as Confident About:

Things We Cannot Legitimately be as Confident About:

• Interior structure of stars and planets. Since we cannot directly see inside we devise models. However, we must recognize that the models may need to be revised.• Meaning of anomalous red shifts. We directly measure the shifts,

but we must then interpret what they mean. Are all red shifts due to linear motion? Could gravitational / relativistic red shifts be involved?• Presence of planets around distant stars. We measure a tiny

amount of “wobble” in the starlight, which we then interpret to mean that an orbiting object is pulling the star. Are there other possibilities?

Phenomena for which we have indirect data, but we cannot directly observe and test.

Phenomena for which we have indirect data, but we cannot directly observe and test.

Red Shift Varies

PLANET IN ORBITPLANET IN ORBIT

MEASURE-MENT

ERRORS

MEASURE-MENT

ERRORS

UNKNOWN FACTORS

UNKNOWN FACTORS

Possible Explanations for “Wobble” of StarlightPossible Explanations for “Wobble” of Starlight

PULSATION OF STAR

PULSATION OF STAR

BROWN DWARF IN

ORBIT

BROWN DWARF IN

ORBIT

Can we be absolutely certain?Can we be absolutely certain?

THINGS WE CANNOT TEST (Deductive Logic Only):

THINGS WE CANNOT TEST (Deductive Logic Only):

•Origin of the matter and energy that comprise the universe•Underlying geometry of the universe •Age of the universe•Mechanisms involved in a Big Bang•Mechanisms of galaxy and cluster formation•Origin of the solar system and its parts

Phenomena we cannot directly observe, for which we devise models that we also cannot directly test.Phenomena we cannot directly observe, for which we devise models that we also cannot directly test.

1 2

HYDROGEN HELIUM 1 43 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LITHIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CARBON NITROGEN OXYGEN FLUORINE NEON 7 9 11 12 14 16 19 2011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

SODIUM MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM SILICON PHOSPHOROUS SULPHUR CHLORINE ARGON 23 24 27 28 31 32 35 4019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

POTASSIUM CALCIUM SCANDIUM TITANIUM VANADIUM CHROMIUM MANGANESE IRON COBALT NICKEL COPPER ZINC GALLIUM GERMANIUM ARSENIC SELENIUM BROMINE KRYPTON 39 40 45 48 51 51 55 56 58 59 64 65 70 73 75 79 80 8437 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

RUBIDIUM STRONTIUM YTTRIUM ZIRCONIUM NIOBIUM MOLYBDENUM TECHNETIUM RUTHENIUM RHODIUM PALLADIUM SILVER CADMIUM INDIUM TIN ANTIMONY TELLURIUM IODINE XENON 85 88 89 91 93 96 99 101 103 106 108 112 115 119 122 126 127 13155 56 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

CESIUM BARIUM HAFNIUM TANTALUM TUNGSTEN RHENIUM OSMIUM IRIDIUM PLATINUM GOLD MERCURY THALLIUM LEAD BISMUTH POLONIUM ASTATINE RADON 133 137 178 181 184 186 190 192 195 197 201 204 207 209 210 219 22287 88 104 105 106 107 108 109

FRANCIUM RADIUM RUTHERFORD- DUBNIUM SEABORGIUM BOHRIUM HASSIUM MEITNERIUM 223 226 IUM 261 262 263 264 265 268

Origin of the ElementsOrigin of the Elements H He

Li Be B C N O F Ne

Na Mg Al Si P S Cl Ar

K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr

Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe

Cs Ba Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn

Fr Ra Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt etc.

Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho E Tm Yb Lu

Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

CERIUM PRASEODYM- NEODYMIUM PROMETHEUM SAMARIUM EUROPIUM GADOLINIUM TERBIUM DYSPROSIUM HOLMIUM ERBIUM THULIUM YTTERBIUM LUTETIUM 140 IUM 141 144 147 147 152 157 159 162 165 167 169 173 17590 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

THORIUM PROTACTIN- URANIUM NEPTUNIUM PLUTONIUM AMERICIUM CURIUM BERKELIUM CALIFORNIUM EINSTEINIUM FERMIUM MENDELEV- NOBELIUM LAWRENCIUM 232 IUM 231 238 237 244 243 247 247 251 252 257 IUM 258 259 260

57

LANTHANUM 13989

ACTINIUM 227

La

Ac

La-Lu57- 71

Ac-Lr89-103

La-Lu57- 71

Ac-Lr89-103

90 elements are known to occur on earth. Elements 43, 61, and 93 and above (shown in red) are known only in artificially manufactured form, though #43 is seen in some

stars.We need to explain the origin of the 90 naturally occurring elements.

90 elements are known to occur on earth. Elements 43, 61, and 93 and above (shown in red) are known only in artificially manufactured form, though #43 is seen in some

stars.We need to explain the origin of the 90 naturally occurring elements.

Naturally Occurring IsotopesNaturally Occurring IsotopesName of Isotope Atomic Number Mass Number Protons Neutrons

hydrogen-1 1 1 1 0hydrogen-2 1 2 1 1hydrogen-3 1 3 1 2helium-3 2 3 2 1helium-4 2 4 2 2NONEXISTENT 5lithium-6 3 6 3 3lithium-7 3 7 3 4NONEXISTENT 8beryllium-9 4 9 4 5boron-10 5 10 5 5boron-11 5 11 5 6carbon-12 6 12 6 6carbon-13 6 13 6 7carbon-14 6 14 6 8nitrogen-14 7 14 7 7nitrogen-15 7 15 7 8oxygen-16 8 16 8 8oxygen-17 8 17 8 9oxygen-18 8 18 8 10

etc.

A Big Bang could not produce any element heavier than Lithium.A Big Bang could not produce any element heavier than Lithium.

WHY SUCH A BIG DEAL?WHY SUCH A BIG DEAL?Somewhere around 99% of the observed matter in the universe consists of H-1 and He-4. There are only a few possible ways to combine two of these atoms.

Somewhere around 99% of the observed matter in the universe consists of H-1 and He-4. There are only a few possible ways to combine two of these atoms.

• Two H-1 nuclei (two protons) cannot stay together without the presence of at least one neutron. (There is no such thing as He-2.) Even then, He-3 comprises only 0.000138% of the Helium known.

• A H-1 and He-4 nucleus together would have mass 5. Oops, it doesn’t exist either.

• Two He-4 nuclei would have a mass of 8, but that doesn’t exist either.

A Big Bang would have expanded too fast to combine more than two particles at a time, and there are no other com-

binations of two. We are blocked at every turn when trying to make heavier elements out of the two

elements that would have been present in a Big Bang.

A Big Bang would have expanded too fast to combine more than two particles at a time, and there are no other com-

binations of two. We are blocked at every turn when trying to make heavier elements out of the two

elements that would have been present in a Big Bang.

Once all the hydrogen in the core of a star is used up, the star is supposed to experience a “helium flash” in which it suddenly fuses two helium nuclei into Be-8, three into

C-12 (“triple-alpha”), and four into O-16.

Once all the hydrogen in the core of a star is used up, the star is supposed to experience a “helium flash” in which it suddenly fuses two helium nuclei into Be-8, three into

C-12 (“triple-alpha”), and four into O-16.

Problems with Synthesis of Heavier Elements in Stars

Problems with Synthesis of Heavier Elements in Stars

THREE PROBLEMS: (1) Be-8 decays instantaneously and would be unavailable as

a building block for heavier elements.(2) The process has never been seen. Even if it did occur, it

would be undetectable. There is no evidence that it has ever happened. It is an a priori assumption needed for materialistic evolution to be true.

(3) Atomic nuclei are so tiny that the chance is extraordinarily small for two to collide, let alone three or four.

Supernovae are believed to reach temperatures thousands of times hotter than normal, high enough to synthesize the rest of the elements. These elements are supposedly flung

into space, then recycled into new stars.

Supernovae are believed to reach temperatures thousands of times hotter than normal, high enough to synthesize the rest of the elements. These elements are supposedly flung

into space, then recycled into new stars.

Problems with Synthesis of Heavier Elements in Supernovae

Problems with Synthesis of Heavier Elements in Supernovae

TWO PROBLEMS: (1) The earliest stars should have been composed of nothing

but hydrogen and helium. However, we have never seen a single metal-free star, even among the very “oldest” ones.

(2) Since gravity drops off by the square of the distance between objects, it would be far too weak to pull the parts back together into a new star. The material should just float through space. No evidence here either - just a desire to have materialistic evolution be true!

IS EVOLUTION FALSIFIABLE?IS EVOLUTION FALSIFIABLE?The most fundamental assumption of evolution is that everything

must be explainable by purely natural processes.But what if something can’t be explained by natural processes?

YES IT CAN! We make up a story then use faulty logic to say,

“Because we can make up a story, therefore our story must be true.”

The most fundamental assumption of evolution is that everything must be explainable by purely natural processes.

But what if something can’t be explained by natural processes? YES IT CAN!

We make up a story then use faulty logic to say, “Because we can make up a story, therefore our story must be true.”

The Story of the Supernovae and the Elements

Do you believe that a shock wave from trillions of miles away can make an expanding cloud collapse into a ball? Do you believe

every observable star in the universe would be affected?

Do you believe that a shock wave from trillions of miles away can make an expanding cloud collapse into a ball? Do you believe

every observable star in the universe would be affected?

Once upon a time there was a big supernova. It produced many atoms of heavy elements, but they were spreading throughout space. Then a

second supernova took place light-years away. The shock wave from the second supernova traveled trillions of miles and pushed the expanding

cloud from the first supernova back together into a ball. It became a new star that now had heavier elements. The process repeated over and over,

spreading heavy elements to every single star we’ve ever seen.The End.

The Origin of Fried EggsThe Origin of Fried Eggs

WAS THERE A COOK,

or...

did a supernova releasea burst of energy

hitting a chicken that exploded

thatbounced off a satellite...

and sent a superheated egg sailing onto a plate?

OCCAM’S RAZOR: OCCAM’S RAZOR: “Entities Should Not Be

Multiplied Beyond Necessity.”

A principle of logic that can be paraphrased as,A principle of logic that can be paraphrased as,

“The simplest explanation that fits all the facts is usually the best.”

Not a hard and fast rule, but a good guideline. The fewer stories you have to make up, the better.

(K.I.S.S.!)

Not a hard and fast rule, but a good guideline. The fewer stories you have to make up, the better.

(K.I.S.S.!)

1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural Processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God has had little involvement with nature.

A Priori Assumptions of Materialistic CosmologyA Priori Assumptions of Materialistic Cosmology

2. The earth cannot occupy any special place in the universe. (The Cosmological Principle)

5. Space is defined by the presence of matter. Where there is no matter, there is no space.

3. In order to explain the earth’s apparent position somewhere near the center of the universe, space must not be three-dimensional. It is four-dimensional and curves back on itself.

4. Four-dimensional space has no center or edge. It is unbounded.

None of these is provable. They are accepted as self-evident.None of these is provable. They are accepted as self-evident.

Classical Physics - Euclidean GeometryClassical Physics - Euclidean Geometry

According to classical physics, if the universe expanded it did so through three-dimensional space.

Points A and B move apart through space.

According to classical physics, if the universe expanded it did so through three-dimensional space.

Points A and B move apart through space.

Relativity - Non- Euclidean Geometry

Relativity - Non- Euclidean Geometry

The universe does not expand through 3-dimensional space

because the universe is space. There is no “outside” because

“outside” indicates a place in space, which does not exist past the edge of the expanding universe. Space expands, but points A and B keep

their same relative positions.

The universe does not expand through 3-dimensional space

because the universe is space. There is no “outside” because

“outside” indicates a place in space, which does not exist past the edge of the expanding universe. Space expands, but points A and B keep

their same relative positions.

•

••

•

AAAA

BB

BB

FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACEFOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACE

Imagine a 2-dimensional ant trapped inside the surface of a piece of paper. He has no concept of “up” or

“down.” Even if the paper is curved into a sphere, he has no way to know it because he can only see

his immediate area.

Big Bang cosmology says that we are the ants, but we don’t know it because we are trapped inside the 3-

dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional “hypersphere.” Space is curved, but we can’t detect it.

UNBOUNDED SPACEUNBOUNDED SPACE

A 2-dimensional ant confined to the surface of a sphere could never reach the center or the edge because from his perspective the surface has no center or edge. To him, it is unbounded.

If space is a 4-dimensional hypersphere, we are confined to its 3-D surface. We can never find the center or the edge

because neither exists. 4-D space would have to be unbounded.

THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLETHE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE No matter where the ant goes, things look pretty much the

same in any direction. There is no referred frame of reference.

Likewise, Big Bang theory assumes that no matter where in space we go, things on a large enough scale will look

pretty much the same in any direction.

This is philosophy, not science. If there is a preferred frame of reference, the big bang and some (not all!) parts of the theory

of relativity are wrong.

2 Types of Evidence Used to Support the

BIG BANG:


BIG BANG:

1. of Starlight1. of Starlight2. Cosmic Microwave Back-

ground Radiation (CMB)2. Cosmic Microwave Back-

ground Radiation (CMB)

Red ShiftRed Shift

SO WHAT’S A “RED SHIFT”?SO WHAT’S A “RED SHIFT”?Reports of the universe expanding are based on colors

(wavelength) of light from stars shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Almost all astronomers interpret this as a

Doppler shift due to the stars moving away from us.

Reports of the universe expanding are based on colors (wavelength) of light from stars shifted toward the red end of

the spectrum. Almost all astronomers interpret this as a Doppler shift due to the stars moving away from us.

Actual wavelength of star’s light Normal absorption spectrum

Seemingly stretched-out wavelength due to motion away from us - exaggerated for purpose of illustration

“Red-Shifted”absorption spectrum

Seemingly compressed wavelength due to motion toward us - exaggerated for purpose of illustration

“Blue-Shifted”absorption spectrum

Red Shift Exists

TRANSVERSE EFFECT

TRANSVERSE EFFECT

GRAVITA-TIONAL EFFECT

GRAVITA-TIONAL EFFECT

UNKNOWN FACTORS

UNKNOWN FACTORS

Possible Explanations for Red ShiftsPossible Explanations for Red Shifts

RELATIVISTIC EFFECT

RELATIVISTIC EFFECT

DOPPLER EFFECT

DOPPLER EFFECT

Would we even know how to interpret a Doppler shift if space is four-dimensional?

Would we even know how to interpret a Doppler shift if space is four-dimensional?

QUASARS: A BIG LITTLE PROBLEM!QUASARS: A BIG LITTLE PROBLEM!Quasars are extremely bright, but their rapid pulsation indicates that

they are relatively small. Because of their high red shifts, they are believed to be among the most distant objects in the universe.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law says energy output is proportional to an object’s surface area and the fourth power of the temperature.

There is no known way an object as small as a quasar could get hot enough to be so bright if it is really billions of light years away.

NASA photos of a quasar supposed to be 1.5 billion light years away

Either we are wrong about the Stefan-Boltzmann law, derived from observation, or else we are wrong about the meaning of red shifts for at least these quasars. How can we be sure about the meaning

of red shifts for anything, then?

Either we are wrong about the Stefan-Boltzmann law, derived from observation, or else we are wrong about the meaning of red shifts for at least these quasars. How can we be sure about the meaning

of red shifts for anything, then?

QUANTIZED RED SHIFTSQUANTIZED RED SHIFTSIf the universe is the result of a Big Bang, then stars

and galaxies near us should have very low red shifts, while those far away should have high shifts.

For objects in between, there should be a continuous distribution of red shifts.

THERE IS NOT. Red shifts occur in discrete intervals

calculated at about 72 km/sec.

Evolutionary astronomy has no explanation for this phenomenon.

Some Intelligent Design advocates point out that the quantization of red shifts would make sense if the earth were near the center of a 3-dimensional

(non-Big Bang) universe.

Some Intelligent Design advocates point out that the quantization of red shifts would make sense if the earth were near the center of a 3-dimensional

(non-Big Bang) universe.

QUANTIZED RED SHIFTSQUANTIZED RED SHIFTS

62 64 66 68 Distance in M Light Years

Nu

mb

er

of

Ga

lax

ies

10

5

0

62 64 66 68 Distance in M Light Years

Nu

mb

er

of

Ga

lax

ies

10

5

0

If the universe expanded uniformly through 3-dimensional space, an observer not near the center would see a continuous range of red shifts determined by the distance of each galaxy emitting light. About 2 million light years from the center, the distribution of red shifts should look something like this:

If the universe expanded uniformly through 3-dimensional space, an observer not near the center would see a continuous range of red shifts determined by the distance of each galaxy emitting light. About 2 million light years from the center, the distribution of red shifts should look something like this:

••

However, an observer near the center would see red shifts in dis-crete intervals. The distributionwould look some-thing like this:

However, an observer near the center would see red shifts in dis-crete intervals. The distributionwould look some-thing like this:

This is exactly what we see.

It looks like the earth is near the center of the universe!

This is exactly what we see.

It looks like the earth is near the center of the universe!

A CHALLENGE TO MATERIALISM:

Come up with an alternate explanation for the quantization

of red shifts.

A CHALLENGE TO MATERIALISM:

Come up with an alternate explanation for the quantization

of red shifts.

1. of Starlight1. of Starlight2. Cosmic Microwave Back-

ground Radiation (CMB)2. Cosmic Microwave Back-

ground Radiation (CMB)

Red ShiftRed Shift


BIG BANG:


BIG BANG:

Energy Level of the CMBEnergy Level of the CMB

• At the time of the Big Bang, theory says that the temperature would have been billions of degrees. Matter and energy would have been freely changing back and forth.

• As the fireball expanded, the matter and energy would have cooled like the gases in a refrigerator.

• After 300,000 years matter and energy would have “decoupled” so that the energy went right through matter without affecting it.

• The energy level of the radiation would have been about 3000K at the time.

• In order to explain the change from 3000K to 2.73K, we have to say that the energy was absorbed by the fabric of space as it expanded.

The present energy level of the CMB is about 2.73 degrees above absolute zero.The present energy level of the CMB is about 2.73 degrees above absolute zero.

This, too, requires expanding 4-dimensional space. It is not possible in 3 dimensions.

This, too, requires expanding 4-dimensional space. It is not possible in 3 dimensions.

Distribution of the CMBDistribution of the CMB

Computer generated image of cosmic microwave background

radiation released by NASA in 1992 based on COBE data.

Computer generated image of cosmic microwave background

radiation released by NASA in 1992 based on COBE data.

The image is deceptive. The “hot spots” are greatly exaggerated due to computer manipulation. The CMB is almost perfectly uniform, to within 30 parts per million.

The image is deceptive. The “hot spots” are greatly exaggerated due to computer manipulation. The CMB is almost perfectly uniform, to within 30 parts per million.

A Possible Factor in the CMB: Blackbody Radiation

A Possible Factor in the CMB: Blackbody Radiation

Wavelength distribution of the CMB, 2.726 degrees above absolute zero. (Based on COBE data.)

Under laboratory conditions, such a distribution usually indicates “blackbody radiation” caused by objects emitting energy at the same

rate they absorb it. Could space dust be contributing to the CMB?

Wavelength distribution of the CMB, 2.726 degrees above absolute zero. (Based on COBE data.)

Under laboratory conditions, such a distribution usually indicates “blackbody radiation” caused by objects emitting energy at the same

rate they absorb it. Could space dust be contributing to the CMB?

INFLATIONARY MODELINFLATIONARY MODELTo account for the “Horizon Problem” – the discrepancy

between the smooth background radiation and the “lumpy” distribution of matter -- many believe that there

was an inflationary period between 10-43 and 10-34 sec-onds after the Big Bang during which space expanded

at 1020 times the speed of light and lumps formed.

This is incompatible with the Law of Conservation of Momentum and Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion. There is no known physical cause for the expansion to speed up and

then slow down again -- only an a priori assumption needed for the Big Bang to be correct.

Inflation is also insufficient to account for the amount of clustering observed. With the amount of matter known in

the universe, it would take 60 billion years to reach the present level. (Hence, the invention of “dark matter.”

This is incompatible with the Law of Conservation of Momentum and Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion. There is no known physical cause for the expansion to speed up and

then slow down again -- only an a priori assumption needed for the Big Bang to be correct.

Inflation is also insufficient to account for the amount of clustering observed. With the amount of matter known in

the universe, it would take 60 billion years to reach the present level. (Hence, the invention of “dark matter.”

COLD DARK MATTERCOLD DARK MATTER

There is nowhere near the amount of matter needed to pull together galaxies, galaxy

clusters, and so on. In order to hold to materialistic Big Bang cosmology, we have to believe that 90 to

99% of the matter in the universe is invisible.

As alternatives, some have proposed String and Texture theories. These depend on the existence of “Higgs Fields,” hypothetical force fields that appear and disappear as

necessary to make the mathematics of a Big Bang work.

Isn’t the Scientific Method supposed to be based on OBSERVATION?

Isn’t the Scientific Method supposed to be based on OBSERVATION?

The Origin of Fried EggsThe Origin of Fried Eggs

WAS THERE A COOK,

or...

did a supernova releasea burst of energy

hitting a chicken that exploded

thatbounced off a satellite...

and sent a superheated egg sailing onto a plate?

Conservation of Angular MomentumConservation of Angular Momentum Any rotating object possesses a property known as angular momentum. As the object’s diameter increases, its speed of rotation decreases in order to conserve angular momentum. As the diameter decreases, the speed increases.

Suppose a galaxy were only a billion miles in diameter, and rotating at only one mile per hour. If we move back through time toward the Big Bang, it must have been smaller and smaller. Since it had all its angular momentum from the beginning, it had to be rotating faster and faster. At some point shortly after the Big Bang, it would have had to be rotating far faster than the speed of light.

According to the observations of physics, this is a physical impossibility.

PROBLEMS WITH “LITTLE BIG BANGS”PROBLEMS WITH “LITTLE BIG BANGS”

1. Each singularity would be the result of a quantum fluctua-tion. The results of such fluctuations should be random and unpredictable. Yet we see the same types of matter and energy everywhere we look throughout the universe.

2. The Big Bang says that there was nothing outside the explo-sion, not even space. Space is 4-dimensional. However, “Little Big Bangs” would have occurred at many different locations, meaning that space already existed before they exploded. Space would have to be 3-dimensional.

3. We must discard the First Law of Thermodynamics over and over, each time one of the smaller singularities appeared.

If there were several “little big bangs” that interacted with each other, this could overcome the problems of conserva-tion of linear momentum and angular momentum. However,

If there were several “little big bangs” that interacted with each other, this could overcome the problems of conserva-tion of linear momentum and angular momentum. However,

Everything must be explainable by purely natural Processes.

Everything must be explainable by purely natural Processes.

The Most Fundamental A Priori Assumption of Materialistic Cosmology:

The Most Fundamental A Priori Assumption of Materialistic Cosmology:

But there are no KNOWN natural processes that might have produced matter and energy, or that might have caused the singularity to explode, or that might have

caused inflation, or that might have caused clustering, etc.

We can choose to believe in unknown NATURAL processes, or unknown NON-NATURAL processes.

Either way, it’s a step of faith!Either way, it’s a step of faith!

HOW ABOUT THE SOLAR SYSTEM?

HOW ABOUT THE SOLAR SYSTEM?

Can we explain its origin by known natural processes?

Can we explain its origin by known natural processes?

COMPOSITION OF THE PLANETSCOMPOSITION OF THE PLANETSThe standard scenario for the origin of the sun and planets is

the collapse of a planetary disk. If this is the case, the chemical composition should be similar throughout the solar system.

The standard scenario for the origin of the sun and planets is the collapse of a planetary disk. If this is the case, the chemical

composition should be similar throughout the solar system.

MercuryVenus Earth

MarsJupiter Saturn

NeptuneUranus

However, NASA space flights tell us that each planet is made of a mix of elements different from all the rest and from the sun.

This is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.

However, NASA space flights tell us that each planet is made of a mix of elements different from all the rest and from the sun.

This is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.

ANGULAR MOMENTUMANGULAR MOMENTUMThe sun possesses 99% of the mass in the solar system, yet

the planets possess 98% of the angular momentum. The sun possesses 99% of the mass in the solar system, yet

the planets possess 98% of the angular momentum.

MercuryVenus Earth

MarsJupiter Saturn

NeptuneUranus

There is no known way that a rotating disk of gas and dusk could distribute its angular momentum so unevenly.

This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.

There is no known way that a rotating disk of gas and dusk could distribute its angular momentum so unevenly.

This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.

ORBITS OF THE PLANETSORBITS OF THE PLANETS Each of the planets orbits the sun in a different plane.

• Pluto, Mercury, and earth’s “twin,” Venus, are the most inclined with respect to our own orbit.

• Venus rotates backward from the rest; Uranus rotates almost perpendicular to its orbit.

• At least 11 moons orbit opposite their mother planet’s rotation.• The moons of Uranus orbit almost perpendicular to the rest of

the solar system.

This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.

COULD THE PLANETS HAVE BEEN CAPTURED BY THE SUN’S GRAVITY?

COULD THE PLANETS HAVE BEEN CAPTURED BY THE SUN’S GRAVITY?

Suppose you had a turn-table with a magnet at the center and nine individual-ly adjustable rotating rings. Could you roll a steel ball bearing onto the turntable and get it to or-bit by exactly balancing the mag-netic force with theoutward momentum?

Suppose you had a turn-table with a magnet at the center and nine individual-ly adjustable rotating rings. Could you roll a steel ball bearing onto the turntable and get it to or-bit by exactly balancing the mag-netic force with theoutward momentum?

MAG-NET

123456789

Got one in orbit? Now do it 8 more times, one for each planet, without dis- turbing the first ball.

Got one in orbit? Now do it 8 more times, one for each planet, without dis- turbing the first ball.

Got your 9 planets in place? Now do it about 4 dozen more times, one for each moon.

Got your 9 planets in place? Now do it about 4 dozen more times, one for each moon. BUT

WAIT! You have to do it in 3 dimensions, not two!

BUT WAIT! You have to do it in 3 dimensions, not two!

Even with all our technology, there is no way we could put together an arrangement as complex as the solar system. Yet it is supposed to be

the product of Random Chance.

Even with all our technology, there is no way we could put together an arrangement as complex as the solar system. Yet it is supposed to be

the product of Random Chance.

WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE

UNIVERSE?

WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE

UNIVERSE?

Back to our first question:Back to our first question:

Not very much! Most of what we think we know is deductive logic, based on a

priori assumptions.

Not very much! Most of what we think we know is deductive logic, based on a

priori assumptions.

Are you willing to examine your assumptions to see if they make sense?

Are you willing to examine your assumptions to see if they make sense?

WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? By David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.

Documents

Transcript of WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? By David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.