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

2. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW? Or at least what you think you know?

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

4. 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. T I M E
Evolutionary “Tree”
All life came from one simple cell

5. CREATION: Initial Complexity with later deterioration and
diversification within limits.
Not just change, but change in the
direction of decreasing complexity.
Complex to Simple. T I M E
Creationist “Forest”
All life came from multiple complex ancestors.

6. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING?
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.
3. Logic.
I know 2 million + 2 million =
4 million, even though I’ve
never counted that high.
I know I have a brain, even
though I’ve never seen it.
4. Feeling or Intuition.
I know she’s the one for
me; I know God has called
me to the ministry.
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!
5. Wishful Thinking (you
really want it to be true)
I just know I’m going to
win the lottery!

7. 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”
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?
OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition,
(5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing?

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

10. THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE:
1. No living person has personal experience.
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.

11. THE TWO TYPES OF LOGIC 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.

12. “SCIENCE” UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES:
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.

13. EXAMPLES OF INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FAULTY LOGIC
“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.

14. “PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT”
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.

15. CONTRASTING LOGIC 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.

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. CONVERSES IN LOGIC If I am at Mount Everest,
then I am at the highest mountain in the world.
TRUE.
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. INVALID LOGIC A converse is NOT reliable
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)
A converse is NOT reliable
if there is more than one possibility.

19. AT ONE OF THE LARGEST WATERFALLS
PROPER LOGIC FLOW
AT ONE OF THE LARGEST WATERFALLS
IF AT NIAGARA FALLS
IF AT VICTORIA FALLS
IF AT ANGEL
FALLS
IF AT KAIETEUR FALLS
IF AT OTHER
LARGE WATER-
FALL

20. The Invalid Logic of Evolutionary Exclusivism
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)
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)
All teaching of “evolution only” in schools rests on the
invalid use of a logical converse.

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

22. DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND SYLLOGISMS
If P is true, then Q is true. (Major premise)
P is true. (Minor premise)
Therefore, Q is true. (Conclusion)
live on earth
then Q
live in U.S.
live in La.
if P
if live in New Orleans
To represent a syllogism graphically, anything inside the inner circle (“if”) is automatically
inside the outer circle (“then”).
Syllogisms can also be
chained (transitive logic).

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!
Basenjis do
not
bark.
If any one of our premises is wrong, then our conclusion is unreliable.

24. 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.
Point not on the first line
Only one parallel line
First 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.”
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.

25. 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.
Known as either NATURALISM,
MATERIALISM, OR ATHEISM.
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.
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.

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,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism.
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.
Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, The New York Review, Jan. 1997

27. NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS
GOD
1. Only seen by what He does -
INVISIBLE.
2. Established natural laws, so
is not subject to those laws -
SUPERNATURAL.
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.
6. Nobody made Him - SELF-
EXISTENT.

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

29. NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS
GOD
1. Only seen by what He does -
INVISIBLE.
RANDOM CHANCE
1. Only seen by what it 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.
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 it - SELF-
EXISTENT.
There is no possibility that some Godlike entity does NOT exist.

30. 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.
But in what way is believing in the IMPOSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design
any more scientific than believing in the
POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design?
Either way it’s a matter of philosophy, not science.

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

33. EVOLUTION: Natural Processes Only!
“... 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
"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. 1999

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!

35. 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.
1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be.
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.
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.
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.
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.

36. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION
4. Because a worldwide flood would cut
billions of years off the time needed to
produce the fossil record, there can
never have been a worldwide flood.
4. The Flood.
a. Recent Creation: One worldwide
flood.
b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods.
c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide
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.
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.

37. DO SIMILARITIES
SHOW COMMON
ANCESTRY?

38. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION
4. Because a worldwide flood would cut
billions of years off the time needed to
produce the fossil record, there can
never have been a worldwide flood.
4. The Flood.
a. Recent Creation: One worldwide
flood.
b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods.
c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide
5. Similarities between living things are
due to common ancestry or chance.
5. Similarities between living things
belonging to different kinds are due to
common design.
6. Scientists are the final authority in
everything. Which scientists? The ones
that agree with you! (At least until they
change their minds next week.)
6. Authority.
a. Recent Creation: The Bible is the final
authority in everything.
b. Gap Theory: The Bible is the final 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.
LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT.

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

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:
Phenomena we can directly observe and test.
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.

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

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

46. THINGS WE CANNOT TEST (Deductive Logic Only):
Phenomena we cannot directly observe, for which we devise models that we also cannot directly test.
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

47. We need to explain the origin of the 90 naturally occurring elements.
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.
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
La-Lu
57- 71
Ac-Lr
89-103 57
LANTHANUM
139 89
ACTINIUM
227 La Ac
CERIUM PRASEODYM- NEODYMIUM PROMETHEUM SAMARIUM EUROPIUM GADOLINIUM TERBIUM DYSPROSIUM HOLMIUM ERBIUM THULIUM YTTERBIUM LUTETIUM
IUM
THORIUM PROTACTIN URANIUM NEPTUNIUM PLUTONIUM AMERICIUM CURIUM BERKELIUM CALIFORNIUM EINSTEINIUM FERMIUM MENDELEV NOBELIUM LAWRENCIUM
IUM IUM
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
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
NONEXISTENT 5
lithium
lithium
NONEXISTENT 8
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.
• 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.

50. Problems with Synthesis of Heavier Elements in Stars
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.
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. Problems with Synthesis of Heavier Elements in Supernovae
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.
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 Story of the Supernovae and the Elements
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.
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?

53. The Origin of Fried Eggs
WAS THERE A COOK,
or...
did a supernova release
a burst of energy
that
bounced off a satellite...
hitting a chicken that
exploded
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.!)

55. A Priori Assumptions of Materialistic Cosmology
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.
2. The earth cannot occupy any special place in the universe. (The Cosmological Principle)
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.
5. Space is defined by the presence of matter. Where there is no matter, there is no space.
None of these is provable. They are accepted as self-evident.

56. • • • • Classical Physics - Euclidean Geometry
Relativity - Non- Euclidean Geometry B • B • • A • A
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.
According to classical physics,
if the universe expanded it did so
through three-dimensional space. Points A and B move apart through space.

57. FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACE Space is curved, but we can’t detect it.
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 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:
of Starlight
Red Shift
2. Cosmic Microwave Back-ground Radiation (CMB)

61. Actual wavelength of star’s light Normal absorption spectrum
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. Possible Explanations for Red Shifts GRAVITA-TIONAL EFFECT
Red Shift Exists
DOPPLER EFFECT
GRAVITA-TIONAL EFFECT
TRANSVERSE EFFECT
RELATIVISTIC EFFECT
UNKNOWN FACTORS
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.

65. QUANTIZED RED SHIFTS • • This is exactly what we see.
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: • •
Distance in M Light Years
Number of Galaxies 10 5
Distance in M Light Years
Number of Galaxies 10 5
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. 2 Types of Evidence Used to Support the BIG BANG:
of Starlight
Red Shift
2. Cosmic Microwave Back-ground Radiation (CMB)

68. Energy Level of the CMB The present energy level of the CMB is
about 2.73 degrees above absolute zero.
• 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.
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.
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?

71. at 1020 times the speed of light and lumps formed.
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 1020 times the speed of light and lumps formed.
This is incompatible with the Law of Conservation of Momentum and Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion. There is no known physical cause for the expansion to speed up and then slow down again -- only an a priori assumption needed for the Big Bang to be correct.
Inflation is also insufficient to account for the amount of clustering observed. With the amount of matter known in the universe, it would take 60 billion years to reach the present level. (Hence, the invention of “dark matter.”

72. Isn’t the Scientific Method supposed to be based on OBSERVATION?
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
that
bounced off a satellite...
hitting a chicken that
exploded
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”
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,
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.

76. The Most Fundamental A Priori Assumption of Materialistic Cosmology:
Everything must be explainable by purely natural Processes.
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
Saturn
Jupiter
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.

79. 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.

80. This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis.
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?
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.
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:
WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE?
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?