Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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?

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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?"— Presentation transcript:

1 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.

2 HOW DO YOU K NOW WHAT YOU K NOW? Or at least what you think you know? HOW DO YOU K NOW WHAT YOU K NOW? Or at least what you think you know? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

3 WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK: Evolution is science... Creation and Intelligent Design are religion. Creation and Intelligent Design are religion.

4 T I M E 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

5 TIMETIME 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.

6 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 = 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?

7 THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THE 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.

8 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?

9 Past + Non-Repeatable + Eyewitness Account = HISTORY Past + Non-Repeatable + No Eyewitnesses = BELIEF Present + Repeatable + Observable = SCIENCE

10 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.

11 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 LOGIC

12 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:

13 “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

14 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”

15 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 LOGIC

16 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?

17 If I am at Mount Everest, then I am at the highest mountain in the world. TRUE. CONVERSES IN LOGIC CONVERSES 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 ONLY if there is an exact one-to-one match between the “If” and “Then” parts - a biconditional (“if and only if”).

18 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 LOGIC

19 AT ONE OF THE LARGEST 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 FLOW PROPER LOGIC FLOW

20 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 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)

21 UNIVERSE EXISTS ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT THEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT YOUNG-EARTH CREATION CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSE OLD-EARTH CREATION CORRECT

22 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 SYLLOGISMS

23 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.

24 First line Point not on the first line Only 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. 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.

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

26 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 to because 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 materialism.

27 NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS GOD GOD 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 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. 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.

28 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?

29 NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS GOD 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. GOD 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 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. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 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. RANDOM CHANCE 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 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. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 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.

30 IS ALL TRUTH SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE? IS ALL TRUTH SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE? 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; our inability to prove there is not a God does not mean He does exist.

31 WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK: Evolution is science... Creation and Intelligent Design are religion. Creation and Intelligent Design are religion. 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?

32 LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION 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. CREATION: 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. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be.

33 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 Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature magazine, Sept “... 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.233

34 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!

35 LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION 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, God’s involvement with nature has been trivial. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. CREATION: EVOLUTION: 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.

36 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. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 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. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION CREATION: EVOLUTION:

37 DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON ANCESTRY? DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON ANCESTRY?

38 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. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 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. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION CREATION: EVOLUTION: 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 au- thority 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.

39 WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? So, back to our first question:

40 THE 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.

41 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.

42 SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS 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. 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 Hydrogen Emission spectrum of Fluorine Emission spectrum of Oxygen

43 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.

44 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.

45 Red Shift Varies PLANET IN ORBIT PLANET IN ORBIT MEASURE- MENT ERRORS UNKNOWN FACTORS Possible Explanations for “Wobble” of Starlight PULSATION OF STAR BROWN DWARF IN ORBIT Can we be absolutely certain?

46 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.

47 1 2 HYDROGEN HELIUM LITHIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CARBON NITROGEN OXYGEN FLUORINE NEON SODIUM MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM SILICON PHOSPHOROUS SULPHUR CHLORINE ARGON POTASSIUM CALCIUM SCANDIUM TITANIUM VANADIUM CHROMIUM MANGANESE IRON COBALT NICKEL COPPER ZINC GALLIUM GERMANIUM ARSENIC SELENIUM BROMINE KRYPTON RUBIDIUM STRONTIUM YTTRIUM ZIRCONIUM NIOBIUM MOLYBDENUM TECHNETIUM RUTHENIUM RHODIUM PALLADIUM SILVER CADMIUM INDIUM TIN ANTIMONY TELLURIUM IODINE XENON CESIUM BARIUM HAFNIUM TANTALUM TUNGSTEN RHENIUM OSMIUM IRIDIUM PLATINUM GOLD MERCURY THALLIUM LEAD BISMUTH POLONIUM ASTATINE RADON FRANCIUM RADIUM RUTHERFORD- DUBNIUM SEABORGIUM BOHRIUM HASSIUM MEITNERIUM IUM Origin 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 CERIUM PRASEODYM- NEODYMIUM PROMETHEUM SAMARIUM EUROPIUM GADOLINIUM TERBIUM DYSPROSIUM HOLMIUM ERBIUM THULIUM YTTERBIUM LUTETIUM 140 IUM THORIUM PROTACTIN- URANIUM NEPTUNIUM PLUTONIUM AMERICIUM CURIUM BERKELIUM CALIFORNIUM EINSTEINIUM FERMIUM MENDELEV- NOBELIUM LAWRENCIUM 232 IUM IUM LANTHANUM ACTINIUM 227 La Ac La-Lu Ac-Lr La-Lu Ac-Lr 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.

48 Naturally Occurring Isotopes Name of Isotope Atomic Number Mass Number Protons Neutrons hydrogen hydrogen hydrogen helium helium NONEXISTENT5 lithium lithium NONEXISTENT8 beryllium boron boron carbon carbon carbon nitrogen nitrogen oxygen oxygen oxygen etc. A Big Bang could not produce any element heavier than Lithium.

49 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 % 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.

50 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 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.

51 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 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!

52 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.

53 The Origin of Fried Eggs WAS THERE A COOK, or... did a supernova release a burst of energy hitting a chicken that exploded that bounced off a satellite... and sent a superheated egg sailing onto a plate?

54 OCCAM’S RAZOR: “Entities Should Not Be Multiplied Beyond Necessity.” 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.!)

55 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 Cosmology A 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.

56 Classical 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 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. A A A A B B B B

57 FOUR 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.

58 UNBOUNDED 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.

59 THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE No matter where the ant goes, things look pretty much the same in any direc- tion. 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.

60 2 Types of Evidence Used to Support the BIG BANG: 1. of Starlight 2. Cosmic Microwave Back- ground Radiation (CMB) Red Shift

61 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. 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

62 Red Shift Exists TRANSVERSE EFFECT GRAVITA- TIONAL EFFECT UNKNOWN FACTORS Possible Explanations for Red Shifts RELATIVISTIC EFFECT DOPPLER EFFECT Would we even know how to interpret a Doppler shift if space is four-dimensional?

63 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?

64 QUANTIZED RED SHIFTS If 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.

65 QUANTIZED RED SHIFTS Distance in M Light Years Number of Galaxies Distance in M Light Years Number of Galaxies 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 distribution would look some- thing like this: However, an observer near the center would see red shifts in dis- crete intervals. The distribution would 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!

66 A CHALLENGE TO MATERIALISM: Come up with an alternate explanation for the quantization of red shifts.

67 1. of Starlight 2. Cosmic Microwave Back- ground Radiation (CMB) Red Shift 2 Types of Evidence Used to Support the BIG BANG:

68 Energy 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.

69 Distribution 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.

70 A Possible Factor in the CMB: Blackbody Radiation Wavelength distrib- ution of the CMB, 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 distrib- ution of the CMB, 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?

71 INFLATIONARY MODEL To 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 and sec- onds after the Big Bang during which space expanded at 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.”

72 COLD 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?

73 The Origin of Fried Eggs WAS THERE A COOK, or... did a supernova release a burst of energy hitting a chicken that exploded that bounced off a satellite... and sent a superheated egg sailing onto a plate?

74 Conservation 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 angu- lar 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.

75 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,

76 Everything must be explainable by purely natural Processes. 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!

77 HOW ABOUT THE SOLAR SYSTEM? Can we explain its origin by known natural processes?

78 COMPOSITION OF THE PLANETS 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. Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Neptune Uranus 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.

79 ANGULAR MOMENTUM The 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. Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Neptune Uranus 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.

80 ORBITS 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.

81 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 the outward 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 the outward momentum? Got one in orbit? Now do it 8 more times, one for each pla- net, without dis- turbing the first ball. Got one in orbit? Now do it 8 more times, one for each pla- net, 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.

82 WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? Back to our first question: 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?


Download ppt "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?"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google