Chronology and timeline of origins of the universe , life and biodiversity, the lack of explanatory power, open questions , and refuted claims of naturalism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1922-chronology-and-timeline-of-origins-of-the-universe-life-and-biodiversity-the-lack-of-explanatory-power-open-questions-and-refuted-claims-of-naturalism
1.Astronomy and astrophysics
1.1 The Big Bang
Astrophysicists (such as Stephen Hawking) determined that the evident starting point just before the Big Bang involved something called a "singularity," which is: all the cosmos's potential mass (matter), energy, and dimensions --and time-- reduced down to an infinitely small point of zero volume. ---Thus, matter, 3-dimensional space, and time virtually did not exist before the Big Bang.
The expanding universe is an important discovery, because if we "reverse the film" of that expansion, then we arrive back at a starting-point for its beginning .
The universe cannot be the effect of absolutely nothing :
A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that Absolutely nothing ( AN ) has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.
B. AN has no creative powers and potentiality. This means AN cannot create or be the cause of anything, since its the absence of any thing.
C. AN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from AN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.
E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from AN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.
F. It would break the law of cause and effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
G. It would break the law of uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
H. AN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from AN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!
Luke Barnes, a non-creationist astrophysicist who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, Australia, is scathing about Krauss and those who argue like him:
First and foremost, I’m getting really rather sick of cosmologists talking about universes being created out of nothing. Krauss repeatedly talked about universes coming out of nothing, particles coming out of nothing, different types of nothing, nothing being unstable. This is nonsense. The word nothing is often used loosely—I have nothing in my hand, there’s nothing in the fridge etc. But the proper definition of nothing is “not anything”. Nothing is not a type of something, not a kind of thing. It is the absence of anything.
Physicist and philosopher David Albert
The fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.—
Something cannot make itself (without violating the first principle of causality)
The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause.
The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia.
1.1a. Problems with the Big Bang theory
A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet ( http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html ) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004).
The dominance of the big bang theory rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’
The open letter includes statements such as:
‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]
‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory .’
further problems 10 ):
Key contradicted predictions:
1) Lithium
Prediction: Any superhot explosion throughout the universe, like the Big Bang, would have generated a certain small amount of the light element lithium.
Evidence: Yet as astronomers have observed older and older stars, the amount of lithium observed has gotten less and less, and, in the oldest stars is less than one tenth of the predicted level. This, however, accords with non-Big-Bang predictions that explain the production of light elementsby stars and cosmic rays within the galaxies themselves.
2) Dark Matter
Prediction: The Big Bang theory requires the existence of dark matter—mysterious particles that have never been observed in the laboratory, despite huge experiments to find them.
Evidence: Multiple lines of evidence, especially observations of the motions of galaxies, show that this dark matter does not exist.
3) Too Large Structures
Prediction: In the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous.
Evidence: But as telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.
4) Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) Asymmetries
Prediction: The inflation that was supposed to have occurred during the Big Bang should have smoothed out any large-scale asymmetries in the universe. The CBR should show be perfectly symmetrical.
Evidence: The CBR in fact shows strong evidence of asymmetries from one side of the sky to the other that, although small, could not have been produced by the ultra-symmetric “inflation” that hypothetically occurred in the Big Bang.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html#wp1011757
1.2.The fundamental forces
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies tells us that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 10^16, no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only one part in 10^40 and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe: the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces; and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.
Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.
To use Davies’ illustration, that is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. If we find that difficult to imagine, a further illustration suggested by astrophysicist Hugh Ross may help. Cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 10^40 that she will.
Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.
1.2a. The Force of Gravity
It is now known that if the force of gravity were any weaker, stars would not have compacted tight enough together so that nuclear fusion would occur. Fusion is necessary to produce the heavier elements upon which life depends (such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) ---and without fusion, there would only be hydrogen and helium in all the universe. On the other hand, if gravity were any stronger, stars would burn so hot that they would burn up in about one year or so (ref. G. Easterbrook, cited, p.26). As it is, the gravitational force is so finely tuned, that the average star is capable of burning in a stable fashion for about 80 billion years (ref. H. Ross, cited, p.60).
How finely tuned is gravity? -- Well, the strength of gravity could be at any one of 14 billion billion billion settings, but there is only one setting which is adequate (and optimal) for a universe with intelligent life to exist.
-- To illustrate: This is as if you had a measuring tape with one-inch sections stretched across the known universe, it would be 14 billion billion billion inches long, and only one or two of those inches in the middle is the optimal strength-setting for gravity. If you moved the strength-setting to the right or left just a couple of inches, then intelligent life could not exist (though bacterial life might survive with gravity stronger or weaker by one setting up or down).
THE PROBABILITY: Although the force of gravity could obviously have attained a large number of wrong magnitude-ranges, the chance of it being correct for intelligent life to exist, is one chance out of 14 billion billion billion. --Thus, we can conservatively say that it was about one chance out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or 1 out of 10^21, or 1 out of a billion trillions) that the force of gravity might have randomly attained such an advantageous strength for the making of life-necessary elements in the stars.
1.2b. The Strong Nuclear Force
This is the force which binds the protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei.
If the strong nuclear force were very slightly weaker by just one part in 10,000 billion billion billion billion, then protons and neutrons would not stick together, and the only element possible in the universe, would be hydrogen only. There would be no stars, and no planets or life in the universe. (Ref., Dr. Robin Collins of Messiah College).
However, if the strong nuclear force were slightly too strong by the same fraction amount, the protons and neutrons would tend to stick together so much that there would basically only be heavy elements, but no hydrogen at all --If this were the case, then life would also not be possible, because hydrogen is a key element in water and in all life-chemistry.
THE PROBABILITY: If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker or stronger than it in fact is, then life would be impossible. Therefore, we can very conservatively say that it was about one chance out of 1,000,000,000,000 (1 out of a trillion) that the strong nuclear force might have randomly possessed the correct strength to make life possible in our cosmos.
1,2c. The Weak Nuclear Force
The weak nuclear force is what controls the rates at which radioactive elements decay. If this force were slightly stronger, the matter would decay into the heavy elements in a relatively short time. However, if it were significantly weaker, all matter would almost totally exist in the form of the lightest elements, especially hydrogen and helium ---there would be (for example) virtually no oxygen, carbon or nitrogen, which are essential for life.
In addition, although heavier elements necessary for life are formed inside giant stars, those elements can only escape the cores of those stars when they explode in supernova explosions, however, such supernova explosions can only occur because the weak nuclear force is exactly the right value. As Professor of astronomy, Paul Davies, describes this situation: "If the weak interaction were slightly weaker, the neutrinos would not be able to exert enough pressure on the outer envelope of the star to cause the supernova explosion. On the other hand, if it were slightly stronger, the neutrinos would be trapped inside the core, and rendered impotent" (My emphasis.) (ref. P.C.W. Davies, The Accidental Universe, London, 1982, p.68.)
THE PROBABILITY: Considering the fine-tuning of the weak nuclear force for both the rate of radioactive decay as well as the precise value required to allow supernova explosions, it is probably conservative to say that it was one chance out of 1000 that the weak nuclear force was at the right strength to permit these processes so that life would be possible.
1.2d. The Electromagnetic Force
If the electromagnetic force (exerted by electrons) were somewhat stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other ---and the sharing of electrons between atoms is what makes chemical bonding possible so that atoms can combine into molecules (e.g., water) so that life can exist. However, if the electromagnetic force were somewhat weaker, then atoms would not hang onto electrons enough to cause any bonding between atoms, and thus, compounds would never hold together. In addition, this fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force must be even more stringent if more and more elements are to be able to bond together into many different types of molecules.
THE PROBABILITY: Considering the range of electromagnetic force that might have occurred, it is reasonable to say that the probability of the electromagnetic force being balanced at the right level for many thousands of compounds to function for the making of chemical compounds necessary for life, is one chance out of 1000.
1.3.Origin of the chemical elements
The Elements
Everything we know of is a composite of a mere 109 building blocks that we call elements. Atoms of the 92 naturally occurring elements combine to form the myriad of materials that we see and use every day. An atom is a collection of particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons 5)
Approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen. Helium makes up about 25% of the mass, and everything else represents only 2%. While the abundance of these more massive ("heavy", A > 4) elements seems quite low, it is important to remember that most of the atoms in our bodies and Earth are a part of this small portion of the matter of the universe. its argued that the low-mass elements, hydrogen and helium, were produced in the hot, dense conditions of the birth of the universe itself. The birth, life, and death of a star is described in terms of nuclear reactions. The chemical elements that make up the matter we observe throughout the universe were created in these reactions.
At first quarks and electrons had only a fleeting existence as a plasma because the annihilation removed them as fast as they were created. As the universe cooled, the quarks condensed into nucleons. This process was similar to the way steam condenses to liquid droplets as water vapor cools. Further expansion and cooling allowed the neutrons and some of the protons to fuse to helium nuclei. The 73% hydrogen and 25% helium abundances that exists throughout the universe today comes from that condensation period during the first three minutes. The 2% of nuclei more massive than helium present in the universe today were created later in stars. 6 )
During the process of stellar evolution nuclear fusion reactions take place within a star. These give rise to the formation of the chemical elements. 7)
It is thought that the early Universe consisted almost entirely of the element hydrogen, with a small amount of helium present too. Hydrogen, therefore, is thought to be the starting material from which all other elements have been built. This is consistent with the very high abundance of hydrogen in the solar abundance profile. The process may be thought of as a series of fusion reactions which weld together simple atomic nuclei to build increasing complex atomic nuclei. The manner in which this is done depends upon the internal temperature of the star and on its mass.
Early in star development hydrogen is utilised to manufacture the element helium. As the hydrogen in the star is used up, the star contracts and its temperature rises so that nuclear reactions can take place which permit the synthesis of the elements carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, from helium (see http://chemistry.ewu.edu/breneman/origin.htm). When the helium is almost completely consumed the carbon and oxygen can be transformed into elements with masses up to that of silicon. Increasing nuclear reactions, at higher temperatures lead to the formation of elements with masses up to that of iron (Fe). Beyond this point heavier elements cannot be formed by the process of nuclear fusion because the temperatures required are higher than those found in stars.
The anomalously low concentrations of the elements Li, Be and B indicate that they are by-passed in nuclear fusion reactions and their genesis seems to be explained by the partial decay of heavier nuclei of the elements carbon and oxygen.
Astronomers recognize two distinct episodes of element creation: primordial nucleosynthesis and stellar nucleosynthesis. Stellar nucleosynthesis also involves nucleosynthesis in supernovae. Primordial nucleosynthesis is the production of certain elements from the big bang model. The primordial elements include hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of lithium. All other elements (including some helium) are thought to have been produced in stars (normal stellar nucleosynthesis and supernovae), though a very small amount of some isotopes can be produced by spallation reactions in the interstellar medium. 10 )
THE ELEMENTAL FORCES
OF THE UNIVERSE
• Gravity. Gravity is the weakest force in the universe, yet it is in perfect balance. If gravity were any stronger, the smaller stars could not form; any weaker, the bigger stars could not form and no heavy elements could exist. Only red dwarf stars would exist, and these would radiate too feebly to support life on a planet.
• Proton to Neutron ratio. A proton is a subatomic particle found in the nucleus of all atoms. It has a positive electric charge that is equal to the negative charge of the electron. A neutron is a subatomic particle that has no electric charge. The mass of the neutron must exceed that of the proton in order for the stable elements to exist. But the neutron can only exceed the mass of the proton by an extremely small amount—an amount that is exactly twice the mass of the electron. That critical point of balance is only one part in a thousand.
If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit—chaos would result. If it were any less or more, atoms would fly apart or crush together—and everything would be destroyed. If the mass of the proton were only slightly larger, the added weight would cause it to quickly become unstable and decay into a neutron, positron, and neutrino. This would destroy hydrogen, the dominant element in the universe. A Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than that of the neutron. Otherwise the universe would collapse.
• Photon to baryon ratio. A photon is the basic quantum, or unit, of light or other electro-magnetic radiant energy, when considered as a discrete particle. The baryon is a subatomic particle whose weight is equal to or greater than that of a proton. This photon-to-baryon ratio is crucial. If the ratio were much higher than it is, stars and galaxies could not hold together through gravitational attraction.
• Nuclear force. It is the nuclear force that holds the atoms together. If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen, only helium and the heavy elements. If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavy elements. Without hydrogen and the heavy elements there could be no life. Without hydrogen, there could be no stable stars.
If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist, and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. A two-percent increase would eliminate protons.
• Electromagnetic force. If it were just a very small amount smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form. A reduction in strength by a factor of only 1.6 would result in the rapid decay of protons into leptons. A threefold increase in the charge of the electron would render it impossible for any element, other than hydrogen, to exist. A threefold decrease would bring the destruction of all neutral atoms by even the lowest heat—such as is found in outer space.
• It would be impossible for evolution to produce the delicate balances of these forces. They were planned. In spite of the delicate internal ratio balance within each of the four forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces), those basic forces have strengths which differ so greatly from one another that the strongest is ten thousand billion billion billion billion times more powerful than the weakest of them. Yet the complicated math required for the Big Bang theory requires that all basic forces had to be the same in strength—during and just after that explosion occurred!
Evolutionists cannot claim that these delicate balances occurred as a result of "natural selection" or "mutations,"—for we are here dealing with the basic properties of matter; there is no room here for gradual "evolving." The proton-neutron mass ratio, for example, is what it has always been—what it was since the Beginning! It has not changed; it will not change. It began just right; there was no second chance! The same applies to all the other factors and balances in elemental matter and the physical principles governing them. 11)
Problems :
For a while, astronomers thought that nearly all elements originated from primordial nucleosynthesis, but it was largely the work of the late Sir Fred Hoyle in the 1950s that showed that this was not possible. The problem is that hydrogen fuses into helium at a much lower temperature than the temperatures required to synthesize helium into heavier elements. The fusion of heavier elements requires that helium first exist. In a big bang universe, by the time that the temperature had cooled sufficiently for helium to form, the window of opportunity for fusing heavier elements had closed. Only after stars had formed were temperatures recreated that could synthesize those heavier elements. 10)
Let’s suppose that the universe is 13.8 b.y. old. That is not enough time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then transmit their light all the way to Earth. A big bang would have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium—the three lightest chemical elements. Light from some of the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain much heavier chemical elements, such as carbon, iron, and lead—elements that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed with the heavy elements from that exploded debris. 8 )
But when fusion creates elements that are heavier than iron, it requires an excess of neutrons. Therefore, astronomers assume that heavier atoms are minted in supernova explosions, where there is a ready supply of neutrons, although the specifics of how this happens are unknown. [See Eric Haseltine, “The Greatest Unanswered Questions of Physics,” Discover, February 2002, p. 40.]
Where the heaviest elements, such as uranium and lead, came from still remains something of a mystery. Ibid., p. 41.
1) http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang
2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/
3) http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html
4) (ref. G.Easterbrook, "Science Sees the Light", The New Republic, Oct.12, 1998, p.26).
5) http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/earth_origin_lecture.html
6) http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/10/0.html
7) http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/origins/earth/ch2_4.htm
8 ) http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ115.html
9 ) https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/discussion-stellar-nucleosynthesis/
10 ) http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/problems-with-big-bang-expanding.html
11 ) http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/Evolution/02b.htm
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1922-chronology-and-timeline-of-origins-of-the-universe-life-and-biodiversity-the-lack-of-explanatory-power-open-questions-and-refuted-claims-of-naturalism
1.Astronomy and astrophysics
1.1 The Big Bang
Astrophysicists (such as Stephen Hawking) determined that the evident starting point just before the Big Bang involved something called a "singularity," which is: all the cosmos's potential mass (matter), energy, and dimensions --and time-- reduced down to an infinitely small point of zero volume. ---Thus, matter, 3-dimensional space, and time virtually did not exist before the Big Bang.
The expanding universe is an important discovery, because if we "reverse the film" of that expansion, then we arrive back at a starting-point for its beginning .
The universe cannot be the effect of absolutely nothing :
A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that Absolutely nothing ( AN ) has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.
B. AN has no creative powers and potentiality. This means AN cannot create or be the cause of anything, since its the absence of any thing.
C. AN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from AN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.
E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from AN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.
F. It would break the law of cause and effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
G. It would break the law of uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
H. AN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from AN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!
Luke Barnes, a non-creationist astrophysicist who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, Australia, is scathing about Krauss and those who argue like him:
First and foremost, I’m getting really rather sick of cosmologists talking about universes being created out of nothing. Krauss repeatedly talked about universes coming out of nothing, particles coming out of nothing, different types of nothing, nothing being unstable. This is nonsense. The word nothing is often used loosely—I have nothing in my hand, there’s nothing in the fridge etc. But the proper definition of nothing is “not anything”. Nothing is not a type of something, not a kind of thing. It is the absence of anything.
Physicist and philosopher David Albert
The fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.—
Something cannot make itself (without violating the first principle of causality)
The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause.
The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia.
1.1a. Problems with the Big Bang theory
A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet ( http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html ) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004).
The dominance of the big bang theory rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’
The open letter includes statements such as:
‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]
‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory .’
further problems 10 ):
Key contradicted predictions:
1) Lithium
Prediction: Any superhot explosion throughout the universe, like the Big Bang, would have generated a certain small amount of the light element lithium.
Evidence: Yet as astronomers have observed older and older stars, the amount of lithium observed has gotten less and less, and, in the oldest stars is less than one tenth of the predicted level. This, however, accords with non-Big-Bang predictions that explain the production of light elementsby stars and cosmic rays within the galaxies themselves.
2) Dark Matter
Prediction: The Big Bang theory requires the existence of dark matter—mysterious particles that have never been observed in the laboratory, despite huge experiments to find them.
Evidence: Multiple lines of evidence, especially observations of the motions of galaxies, show that this dark matter does not exist.
3) Too Large Structures
Prediction: In the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous.
Evidence: But as telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.
4) Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) Asymmetries
Prediction: The inflation that was supposed to have occurred during the Big Bang should have smoothed out any large-scale asymmetries in the universe. The CBR should show be perfectly symmetrical.
Evidence: The CBR in fact shows strong evidence of asymmetries from one side of the sky to the other that, although small, could not have been produced by the ultra-symmetric “inflation” that hypothetically occurred in the Big Bang.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html#wp1011757
1.2.The fundamental forces
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies tells us that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 10^16, no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only one part in 10^40 and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe: the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces; and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.
Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.
To use Davies’ illustration, that is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. If we find that difficult to imagine, a further illustration suggested by astrophysicist Hugh Ross may help. Cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 10^40 that she will.
Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.
1.2a. The Force of Gravity
It is now known that if the force of gravity were any weaker, stars would not have compacted tight enough together so that nuclear fusion would occur. Fusion is necessary to produce the heavier elements upon which life depends (such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) ---and without fusion, there would only be hydrogen and helium in all the universe. On the other hand, if gravity were any stronger, stars would burn so hot that they would burn up in about one year or so (ref. G. Easterbrook, cited, p.26). As it is, the gravitational force is so finely tuned, that the average star is capable of burning in a stable fashion for about 80 billion years (ref. H. Ross, cited, p.60).
How finely tuned is gravity? -- Well, the strength of gravity could be at any one of 14 billion billion billion settings, but there is only one setting which is adequate (and optimal) for a universe with intelligent life to exist.
-- To illustrate: This is as if you had a measuring tape with one-inch sections stretched across the known universe, it would be 14 billion billion billion inches long, and only one or two of those inches in the middle is the optimal strength-setting for gravity. If you moved the strength-setting to the right or left just a couple of inches, then intelligent life could not exist (though bacterial life might survive with gravity stronger or weaker by one setting up or down).
THE PROBABILITY: Although the force of gravity could obviously have attained a large number of wrong magnitude-ranges, the chance of it being correct for intelligent life to exist, is one chance out of 14 billion billion billion. --Thus, we can conservatively say that it was about one chance out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or 1 out of 10^21, or 1 out of a billion trillions) that the force of gravity might have randomly attained such an advantageous strength for the making of life-necessary elements in the stars.
1.2b. The Strong Nuclear Force
This is the force which binds the protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei.
If the strong nuclear force were very slightly weaker by just one part in 10,000 billion billion billion billion, then protons and neutrons would not stick together, and the only element possible in the universe, would be hydrogen only. There would be no stars, and no planets or life in the universe. (Ref., Dr. Robin Collins of Messiah College).
However, if the strong nuclear force were slightly too strong by the same fraction amount, the protons and neutrons would tend to stick together so much that there would basically only be heavy elements, but no hydrogen at all --If this were the case, then life would also not be possible, because hydrogen is a key element in water and in all life-chemistry.
THE PROBABILITY: If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker or stronger than it in fact is, then life would be impossible. Therefore, we can very conservatively say that it was about one chance out of 1,000,000,000,000 (1 out of a trillion) that the strong nuclear force might have randomly possessed the correct strength to make life possible in our cosmos.
1,2c. The Weak Nuclear Force
The weak nuclear force is what controls the rates at which radioactive elements decay. If this force were slightly stronger, the matter would decay into the heavy elements in a relatively short time. However, if it were significantly weaker, all matter would almost totally exist in the form of the lightest elements, especially hydrogen and helium ---there would be (for example) virtually no oxygen, carbon or nitrogen, which are essential for life.
In addition, although heavier elements necessary for life are formed inside giant stars, those elements can only escape the cores of those stars when they explode in supernova explosions, however, such supernova explosions can only occur because the weak nuclear force is exactly the right value. As Professor of astronomy, Paul Davies, describes this situation: "If the weak interaction were slightly weaker, the neutrinos would not be able to exert enough pressure on the outer envelope of the star to cause the supernova explosion. On the other hand, if it were slightly stronger, the neutrinos would be trapped inside the core, and rendered impotent" (My emphasis.) (ref. P.C.W. Davies, The Accidental Universe, London, 1982, p.68.)
THE PROBABILITY: Considering the fine-tuning of the weak nuclear force for both the rate of radioactive decay as well as the precise value required to allow supernova explosions, it is probably conservative to say that it was one chance out of 1000 that the weak nuclear force was at the right strength to permit these processes so that life would be possible.
1.2d. The Electromagnetic Force
If the electromagnetic force (exerted by electrons) were somewhat stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other ---and the sharing of electrons between atoms is what makes chemical bonding possible so that atoms can combine into molecules (e.g., water) so that life can exist. However, if the electromagnetic force were somewhat weaker, then atoms would not hang onto electrons enough to cause any bonding between atoms, and thus, compounds would never hold together. In addition, this fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force must be even more stringent if more and more elements are to be able to bond together into many different types of molecules.
THE PROBABILITY: Considering the range of electromagnetic force that might have occurred, it is reasonable to say that the probability of the electromagnetic force being balanced at the right level for many thousands of compounds to function for the making of chemical compounds necessary for life, is one chance out of 1000.
1.3.Origin of the chemical elements
The Elements
Everything we know of is a composite of a mere 109 building blocks that we call elements. Atoms of the 92 naturally occurring elements combine to form the myriad of materials that we see and use every day. An atom is a collection of particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons 5)
Approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen. Helium makes up about 25% of the mass, and everything else represents only 2%. While the abundance of these more massive ("heavy", A > 4) elements seems quite low, it is important to remember that most of the atoms in our bodies and Earth are a part of this small portion of the matter of the universe. its argued that the low-mass elements, hydrogen and helium, were produced in the hot, dense conditions of the birth of the universe itself. The birth, life, and death of a star is described in terms of nuclear reactions. The chemical elements that make up the matter we observe throughout the universe were created in these reactions.
At first quarks and electrons had only a fleeting existence as a plasma because the annihilation removed them as fast as they were created. As the universe cooled, the quarks condensed into nucleons. This process was similar to the way steam condenses to liquid droplets as water vapor cools. Further expansion and cooling allowed the neutrons and some of the protons to fuse to helium nuclei. The 73% hydrogen and 25% helium abundances that exists throughout the universe today comes from that condensation period during the first three minutes. The 2% of nuclei more massive than helium present in the universe today were created later in stars. 6 )
During the process of stellar evolution nuclear fusion reactions take place within a star. These give rise to the formation of the chemical elements. 7)
It is thought that the early Universe consisted almost entirely of the element hydrogen, with a small amount of helium present too. Hydrogen, therefore, is thought to be the starting material from which all other elements have been built. This is consistent with the very high abundance of hydrogen in the solar abundance profile. The process may be thought of as a series of fusion reactions which weld together simple atomic nuclei to build increasing complex atomic nuclei. The manner in which this is done depends upon the internal temperature of the star and on its mass.
Early in star development hydrogen is utilised to manufacture the element helium. As the hydrogen in the star is used up, the star contracts and its temperature rises so that nuclear reactions can take place which permit the synthesis of the elements carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, from helium (see http://chemistry.ewu.edu/breneman/origin.htm). When the helium is almost completely consumed the carbon and oxygen can be transformed into elements with masses up to that of silicon. Increasing nuclear reactions, at higher temperatures lead to the formation of elements with masses up to that of iron (Fe). Beyond this point heavier elements cannot be formed by the process of nuclear fusion because the temperatures required are higher than those found in stars.
The anomalously low concentrations of the elements Li, Be and B indicate that they are by-passed in nuclear fusion reactions and their genesis seems to be explained by the partial decay of heavier nuclei of the elements carbon and oxygen.
Astronomers recognize two distinct episodes of element creation: primordial nucleosynthesis and stellar nucleosynthesis. Stellar nucleosynthesis also involves nucleosynthesis in supernovae. Primordial nucleosynthesis is the production of certain elements from the big bang model. The primordial elements include hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of lithium. All other elements (including some helium) are thought to have been produced in stars (normal stellar nucleosynthesis and supernovae), though a very small amount of some isotopes can be produced by spallation reactions in the interstellar medium. 10 )
THE ELEMENTAL FORCES
OF THE UNIVERSE
• Gravity. Gravity is the weakest force in the universe, yet it is in perfect balance. If gravity were any stronger, the smaller stars could not form; any weaker, the bigger stars could not form and no heavy elements could exist. Only red dwarf stars would exist, and these would radiate too feebly to support life on a planet.
• Proton to Neutron ratio. A proton is a subatomic particle found in the nucleus of all atoms. It has a positive electric charge that is equal to the negative charge of the electron. A neutron is a subatomic particle that has no electric charge. The mass of the neutron must exceed that of the proton in order for the stable elements to exist. But the neutron can only exceed the mass of the proton by an extremely small amount—an amount that is exactly twice the mass of the electron. That critical point of balance is only one part in a thousand.
If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit—chaos would result. If it were any less or more, atoms would fly apart or crush together—and everything would be destroyed. If the mass of the proton were only slightly larger, the added weight would cause it to quickly become unstable and decay into a neutron, positron, and neutrino. This would destroy hydrogen, the dominant element in the universe. A Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than that of the neutron. Otherwise the universe would collapse.
• Photon to baryon ratio. A photon is the basic quantum, or unit, of light or other electro-magnetic radiant energy, when considered as a discrete particle. The baryon is a subatomic particle whose weight is equal to or greater than that of a proton. This photon-to-baryon ratio is crucial. If the ratio were much higher than it is, stars and galaxies could not hold together through gravitational attraction.
• Nuclear force. It is the nuclear force that holds the atoms together. If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen, only helium and the heavy elements. If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavy elements. Without hydrogen and the heavy elements there could be no life. Without hydrogen, there could be no stable stars.
If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist, and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. A two-percent increase would eliminate protons.
• Electromagnetic force. If it were just a very small amount smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form. A reduction in strength by a factor of only 1.6 would result in the rapid decay of protons into leptons. A threefold increase in the charge of the electron would render it impossible for any element, other than hydrogen, to exist. A threefold decrease would bring the destruction of all neutral atoms by even the lowest heat—such as is found in outer space.
• It would be impossible for evolution to produce the delicate balances of these forces. They were planned. In spite of the delicate internal ratio balance within each of the four forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces), those basic forces have strengths which differ so greatly from one another that the strongest is ten thousand billion billion billion billion times more powerful than the weakest of them. Yet the complicated math required for the Big Bang theory requires that all basic forces had to be the same in strength—during and just after that explosion occurred!
Evolutionists cannot claim that these delicate balances occurred as a result of "natural selection" or "mutations,"—for we are here dealing with the basic properties of matter; there is no room here for gradual "evolving." The proton-neutron mass ratio, for example, is what it has always been—what it was since the Beginning! It has not changed; it will not change. It began just right; there was no second chance! The same applies to all the other factors and balances in elemental matter and the physical principles governing them. 11)
Problems :
For a while, astronomers thought that nearly all elements originated from primordial nucleosynthesis, but it was largely the work of the late Sir Fred Hoyle in the 1950s that showed that this was not possible. The problem is that hydrogen fuses into helium at a much lower temperature than the temperatures required to synthesize helium into heavier elements. The fusion of heavier elements requires that helium first exist. In a big bang universe, by the time that the temperature had cooled sufficiently for helium to form, the window of opportunity for fusing heavier elements had closed. Only after stars had formed were temperatures recreated that could synthesize those heavier elements. 10)
Let’s suppose that the universe is 13.8 b.y. old. That is not enough time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then transmit their light all the way to Earth. A big bang would have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium—the three lightest chemical elements. Light from some of the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain much heavier chemical elements, such as carbon, iron, and lead—elements that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed with the heavy elements from that exploded debris. 8 )
But when fusion creates elements that are heavier than iron, it requires an excess of neutrons. Therefore, astronomers assume that heavier atoms are minted in supernova explosions, where there is a ready supply of neutrons, although the specifics of how this happens are unknown. [See Eric Haseltine, “The Greatest Unanswered Questions of Physics,” Discover, February 2002, p. 40.]
Where the heaviest elements, such as uranium and lead, came from still remains something of a mystery. Ibid., p. 41.
1) http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang
2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/
3) http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html
4) (ref. G.Easterbrook, "Science Sees the Light", The New Republic, Oct.12, 1998, p.26).
5) http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/earth_origin_lecture.html
6) http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/10/0.html
7) http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/origins/earth/ch2_4.htm
8 ) http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ115.html
9 ) https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/discussion-stellar-nucleosynthesis/
10 ) http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/problems-with-big-bang-expanding.html
11 ) http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/Evolution/02b.htm
Last edited by Admin on Tue May 09, 2017 12:47 pm; edited 7 times in total
