Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Contents: Overheads to be used with Chapter 9 of “Truth in the Balance,” copyright 2003 by David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. REVISION DATE 11/24/2014 This.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Contents: Overheads to be used with Chapter 9 of “Truth in the Balance,” copyright 2003 by David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. REVISION DATE 11/24/2014 This."— Presentation transcript:

1 Contents: Overheads to be used with Chapter 9 of “Truth in the Balance,” copyright 2003 by David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. REVISION DATE 11/24/2014 This material is made available by the author at no charge. It may be reproduced for use in a Christian environment such as Sunday schools or Bible classes, but it may not be used for any commercial purposes. To be certain that you have the most up-to-date version of this material, go to the Origins Resource Association website, www.originsresource.org. Follow the links to “Bible College Materials” and check that the revision date shown online is the same as shown above. If not, download the latest version.  2007 by David A. Prentice

2 Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Any model of origins must deal with Four Major Areas: 1. How did matter and energy come into existence? 2. How did they get from there to their present state? 3. How did life begin? 4. How did it get from there to its present state? 9-1

3  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 9-2 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. 1999 Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature magazine, Sept. 1999 “... the theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p.233

4  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice THE SEARCH FOR DESIGN: A Normal Part of Science! THE SEARCH FOR DESIGN: A Normal Part of Science! NASA Space Flights / SETI Airplane Crash Investigation Arson Investigation Investigation of Suspicious Deaths Archaeology 9-3

5  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice But if even one physical phenomenon has a supernatural cause, then all of evolutionary logic is unreliable. But if even one physical phenomenon has a supernatural cause, then all of evolutionary logic is unreliable. Methodological Naturalism, or Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. Methodological Naturalism, or Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. It only takes one non- barking dog to show that “All dogs bark” is false. It only takes one non- barking dog to show that “All dogs bark” is false. THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC: 9-4

6  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Biochemist Michael Behe, a theistic evolutionist, likens much of mod- ern biological re- search to a group of detectives inves- tigating a flattened body. As they search for clues to the cause of death they have to keep stepping around the ele- phant in the room. However, because they have agreed in advance that there is no such thing as an elephant, none of them is will- ing to say, “Maybe the elephant did it.” Rather than go against the majority view and be labeled incompetent or supersti- tious, they keep searching for other explanations. BEHE’S POINT: LET’S QUIT OVERLOOKING THE POSSIBILITY OF DESIGN! BEHE’S POINT: LET’S QUIT OVERLOOKING THE POSSIBILITY OF DESIGN! 9-5

7  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice ARGUMENTS AGAINST DESIGN 9-6 1. Things can’t be designed because that would bring God into science. A philosophical rather than scientific argument. Besides, it’s really dumb! In order to disprove design, evolutionists would have had to be watching since the beginning of the earth. 2. Things can’t be designed be- cause we don’t like the way they are put together (e.g. the panda’s “thumb”). This only proves that if there is a designer, we either dis- agree with Him or don’t under- stand His purposes.

8  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 9-7 ARGUMENTS FOR DESIGN 1. OPINION (e.g. beauty in nature implies a designer with a sense of beauty). Not very persuasive to someone who thinks nature is ugly.

9  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice WHO NEEDS FACTS WHEN YOU CAN MAKE UP STORIES? Darwin said, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree...” “Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imper- fect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.” So did he give up? NO! He made up a story! SINCE WE CAN MAKE UP A STORY, THEREFORE OUR STORY MUST BE TRUE! 9-8

10  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice SPECIFIED IMPROBABILITY In any collection of matter, no one arrangement is more or less improbable than any other. (Somebody is probably going to win the lottery.) However, this is not what the search for design is about. We are looking not just for improbability, but improba- bility in a spe- cific direction. (Is Mt. Rush- more an acci- dent? If the same person wins the lottery week after week, aren’t you going to get suspicious?) In nature, most arrangements produce meaningless junk. Only a few produce life. The question is, how improbable is it that those specific arrangements could arise by chance? 9-9

11  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice ARGUMENTS FOR DESIGN 1. OPINION (e.g. beauty in nature implies a designer with a sense of beauty). Not very persuasive to someone who thinks nature is ugly. 2. EXTREME IMPROBABILITY in a specific pattern. No theoretical barrier says it’s impossible for an armadillo or groundhog to make it across a busy 1000 lane superhighway - he just doesn’t. 9-10

12  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice ARGUMENTS FOR DESIGN 3. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. A mousetrap is a good example of an irreducibly complex machine. It must have a base, hammer, spring, latch, and trigger. If any one of them is missing or not working properly, it is not a mouse- trap but a pile of junk. If any part of an irreducibly complex machine is missing or not working right, the whole thing is a useless waste of materials. hammer trigger base spring latch 9-11

13  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice MINIMAL FUNCTION A machine must have at least minimal function to be of any use. It is not possible to make an irreducibly complex machine by gradual changes in a different type of machine. You could modify a rat trap to make a mouse trap, but you could not make one out of a can opener. You would quickly have a piece of junk that could neither open cans nor catch mice. Likewise, irreducibly complex mech- anisms in living things could not have evolved from mechanisms of a different type. Natural selection would have eliminated the non-functioning intermediates. 9-12

14  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Predictions About the Origin of Life Initial Disorganization (Evolution): Initial Disorganization (Evolution): Initial Complexity (Creation): Initial Complexity (Creation): 1. Natural processes should be sufficient to produce life (no supernatural interven- tion). 2. Since the chemistry to produce life cannot happen under present conditions, we should find evidence that the early earth’s environ- ment was much dif- ferent than it is today. 1. Life should be far too complex to be the result of purely natural processes. 2. We should find evi- dence that the early earth’s environment was suitable to sustain life as we know it - probably quite similar to the way it is today. 9-13

15  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 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. 1999 Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature magazine, Sept. 1999 “... the theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p.233 9-14

16  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice LIFE IN THE LAB? Actual apparatus used by Dr. Stanley Miller (Denver Museum) Other experiments use different energy sources or extra gases, but all are based on Miller’s design. SAMPLING STOPCOCKS TUNGSTEN ELECTRODES (SPARK DISCHARGE) INSIDE 5- LITER FLASK CONDENSER GASES: CH 4 NH 3 H 2 O H 2 Water containing organic compounds TRAP 9-15

17  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice The 20 Amino Acids Used in Proteins Source: James Watson, Molecular Biology of the Gene 9-16

18  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Problems With the “Primordial Soup” 1. Non-Oxygen Atmosphere. Even the lowest Precambrian sediments, all the way down to basement rock, contain “red beds” -- oxidized deposits showing the presence of free oxygen. The evidence indicates that the atmosphere has always contained free oxygen. Even the evolutionary scenario for the origin of the earth shows that oxygen would have been present from the beginning. No traces of the “primordial soup” have ever been found. 9-17

19  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice How Living Things Deal With Oxygen Oxygen is one of the most reactive elements. When a mixture of chemicals containing oxygen is allowed to react on its own, the oxygen will “overpower” many of the other chemicals and react faster than they do, produc- ing biologically useless compounds. The reactions in living things do not occur on their own. They are able to overcome the natural tendencies of oxygen because they are guided by the information in DNA. There would have been no DNA present on the early earth to ensure that the proper reactions occurred. Though oxygen is essential to life, it interferes with the chemistry that would have been needed for life to evolve from chemicals. 9-18

20  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 2. Oxygen-UV Dilemma. Without oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no- thing to filter out deadly 310 nm ultra- violet radiation. a. Free oxygen = wrong reactions. b. No free oxygen = Rapid breakdown of the methane and ammonia in the “primordial soup”; Destruction of amino acids and other organic compounds as fast as they could form. ® Problems With the “Primordial Soup” 9-19

21  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 3. Trapping Mechanism. The same energy source that produces the organic compounds quickly destroys them unless they are removed by a “cold trap.” Water containing organic compounds “COLD TRAP” No such trapping mechanism is known in nature. Problems With the “Primordial Soup” 9-20

22  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Nitrogen: more than just an annoying little problem. Nitrogen makes up about 78% of the atmosphere. Its natural condition is in the form of two atoms tightly bonded together as N 2. Atmospheric nitrogen is practically inert. Problems With the “Primordial Soup” 9-21 1. Many of the major components of cells are proteins. 3. In order for amine groups to form in the first place, free nitrogen must be available. 2. Proteins cannot exist without amino acids, which are identified by an amine group (-NH 2 ) on one end.. 4. Before nitrogen can be used, it must be separated (fixated) from its unreactive natural form of N2 N2 into two atoms of N.

23  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Nitrogen: more than just an annoying little problem. Problems With the “Primordial Soup” 5. Most nitrogen fixation is done by bacteria, which would not have existed before the first cell came alive because they are cells themselves. 6. The other way nitrogen is fixated is by lightning. (This eliminates UV, heat, impact, etc. as possible energy sources for the hypothetical origin of the first living cell.) 9-22 7. If lightning were responsible, it would have had to strike to make fixated products such as amine groups, wait exactly the right amount of time for them to diffuse through the environment, then strike at exactly the same spot (but at a greatly reduced strength) to make them combine into amino acids.

24  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 4. Optical Isomers. 19 of the 20 amino acids used in proteins can exist in mirror images known as the left-handed (L-) or right- handed (D-) form. For example: Random chemical processes produce a 50/50 mix. Yet protein in living cells is made up of ONLY the L- forms. This CANNOT be explained by chemical processes alone. Problems With the “Primordial Soup” 9-23

25  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Amino Acids and Probability Suppose a cell used just one type of amino acid instead of 20. Could random chemical action accidentally put together just 125 proteins of 100 amino acids each, using only the left-handed form? It’s about as likely as a groundhog with a 50/50 chance of making it across any one lane getting across 12,500 lanes on a superhighway. 9-24

26  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice What if evolutionists find something that can’t be explained by known natural causes? NO PROBLEM! They explain it anyway, by making up stories about unknown natural causes. And the story is... CHEMISTRY! What if evolutionists find something that can’t be explained by known natural causes? NO PROBLEM! They explain it anyway, by making up stories about unknown natural causes. And the story is... CHEMISTRY! 9-25

27  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 5. Chemistry. a. We have to start with the right chemicals to make amino acids, bases, and sugars. Problems With the “Primordial Soup” cross-section of a typical animal cell - after The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia (CD version) b. Hundreds or thousands of these must overcome the natu- ral attraction of positive-to- negative so they can work their way past the useless chemicals in their way and link into each molecule of protein and RNA/ DNA. c. Next, they have to come to- gether into clusters such as coacervates. At least some of these must be able to attract the other molecules they need. d. Now they must form a cell mem- brane and absorb exactly the necessary molecules to put to- gether a mechanism such as RNA/DNA to reproduce. e. Finally, the whole thing has to undergo some unknown pro- cess to come alive. A cell is more than just a few amino acids strung together! 9-26

28  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice The 20 Amino Acids Used in Proteins Source: James Watson, Molecular Biology of the Gene 9-27

29  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice IS IT SOUP YET? NO! Even with a primordial soup containing only Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen, the chemistry is so complicated that experimenters buy purified amino acids instead of making their own. But this soup is far too simple! (1) Two amino acids require Sulfur; (2) DNA and RNA require Phosphorous; (3) Early plants would have required Magnesium for photosynthesis; and (4) Living things also need Iron, Copper, Calcium, and many other elements. When the extra elements are added to the “soup,” the chemistry to produce a cell becomes impossibly hard. 9-28

30  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Probability of Forming a Cell The simplest possible theoretically cell would have about 124 proteins of 400 amino acids each. If the primordial soup contained nothing but pure amino acids, the probability that the right ones could come together to form a cell has been cal- culated at less than 1 in 10 78,400. If there were as many possible types of cells as atoms in the universe (about 10 80 ), the prob- ability is still less than 1 in 10 78,300. Ideal conditions everywhere in the universe for trillions of years wouldn’t help. Nothing could reproduce because there would be no DNA. 9-29

31  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice STRUCTURE OF DNA DNA is arranged in a double helix. One strand contains millions or billions of molecules called bases or nucle- otides, represented by the letters A, C, G, and T. These can be arranged in an infinite number of ways to “spell out” the instruc- tions to pro- duce any type of living thing. The DNA is subdivided into chromosomes. Normal humans have 46; other types of organisms have vary- ing numbers. The chromosomes are subdivided into thou- sands of genes. Each gene contains the coded in- structions either to make a specific protein or else to control some cell function. The genes that code for proteins are subdivided into trip- lets, groups of three bases that contain the informa- tion to put one specific amino acid into place. It would take six volumes of over three hundred pages each just to write down the instructions contained in the DNA of a “simple” bacterium such as E. Coli. 9-30

32  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Some typical enzymes - anything but simple! Part of the clamp-loader complex of DNA polymerase 3 in E. coli by Guenther, Onrust, Sali, O’Donnell, & Kuriyan Problems With the “Primordial Soup” Bovine chymotrypsin model by Sugio, Kashima, Inoue, Maeda, Nose, & Shimohigashi Model of a typical helicase enzyme by D. Fass, C. E. Bogden, & J. M. Berger All models from the Protein DataBank of the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics 9-31

33  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 6. DNA / Enzyme Dilemma Special proteins called enzymes are crucial to the operation of cells, making some reactions proceed billions of times faster. WITHOUT ENZYMES, LIFE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. DNA is needed to make enzymes, but enzymes are needed to make DNA! Since both have to be present at the same time, they could not have evolved by gradual changes in dissimilar mechanisms. Where did they come from? Chance or design? Problems With the “Primordial Soup” 9-32

34  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 7. The Cell Membrane. Phospholipids can spontaneously form membranes. However, these membranes are impermeable to many substances needed for cell growth and reproduction, especially phosphates needed for DNA. To overcome this problem, membranes in living things contain microscopic “gateways” called ion channels or permeases, which let needed substances in and out. These channels are present only because DNA contains the instructions to make them. Problems With the “Primordial Soup” Cutaway diagram of animal cell surrounded by membrane Detail of double phospholipid membrane showing 2 ion channels Ion channels are needed to form DNA, but DNA is needed to form ion channels. 9-33

35  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Problems With the “Primordial Soup” 1. Non-Oxygen Atmosphere required. 2. Oxygen-Ultraviolet Dilemma. 3. Need for a sophisticated Trapping Mechanism. 4. Optical Isomers. 5. Chemistry. 6. DNA/Enzyme Dilemma. 7. Impermeability of Cell Membrane. 9-34

36  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice What if evolutionists find something that can’t be explained by known natural causes? NO PROBLEM! They explain it anyway, by making up stories about unknown natural causes. And the story is... Directed Pan-Spermia! What if evolutionists find something that can’t be explained by known natural causes? NO PROBLEM! They explain it anyway, by making up stories about unknown natural causes. And the story is... Directed Pan-Spermia! 9-35

37  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Sir Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA, recognizes that conditions on earth have never been right to produce life by chemical processes. Instead of believing in creation, he proposes that some sort of seeds were sent to earth by an advanced civilization in outer space. These seeds then began the process of evolution. Where is the observation required by science? The motive for Pan-Spermia is not scientific, but philosophical. You don’t have to give an account for your life to a UFO. DIRECTED PAN-SPERMIA 9-36

38  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice WHAT IS LIFE? Imagine two chemically identical collections of matter side by side. The first takes in nutrients, excretes wastes, responds to its environ- ment, grows, and reproduces. It is alive. The second does none of these things. It is a life- less corpse. Nobody knows what makes one alive and the other dead. Science can describe how life operates but cannot tell us what it is nor why it exists. 9-37

39  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Why Not Believe in Life in Outer Space? Why Believe in Life in Outer Space? Because it makes sense to you that the Bible is right in this area, which is beyond the reach of human testing. This is a religious belief. Because it makes sense to you that the Bible is wrong in this area, which is beyond the reach of human testing. This is every bit as religious. 9-38

40  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice ARE THERE OTHER PLANETS OUTSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM? The media tell us that hundreds of planets have been discov- ered outside the solar system. But HOW DO THEY KNOW? NASAPhotoNASAPhoto 9-39

41  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Are There Other Planets Outside the Solar System? Are There Other Planets Outside the Solar System? Even with our most powerful telescopes such as the Hubble Space Telescope, we cannot visibly see a single planet out- side the solar system! Instead, we infer their presence by logic. 9-40 Transit Method. Even if there were a Jupiter-size planet eclip- sing a star, it would block only a tiny bit of the light. Every so often a star seems to have a periodic decrease in brightness that could be from an eclipsing planet. However, some types of stars called Pulsars and Cepheid Variables periodically change brightness without any known planets, so we cannot be sure of the cause of the decrease. How about a planet merely reflecting light from a star? National Geographic says that looking for a planet passing next to even the closest stars would be like trying to spot a firefly in front of a lighthouse bulb from 3,000 miles away.

42  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Are There Other Planets Outside the Solar System? Are There Other Planets Outside the Solar System? The closest star to our solar system is Alpha Centauri, about 4.5 light years away. (A light year is the distance light travels in a year, about 6 trillion miles.) Even for this closest star, if there were a massive planet in orbit that pulled it 50 mil- lion miles either way (half as far as the earth’s orbit!), the motion would be only about 1/1500 of one degree - extremely hard to detect. 9-41

43  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Are There Other Planets Outside the Solar System? Are There Other Planets Outside the Solar System? The closest star to our solar system is Alpha Centauri, about 4.5 light years away. (A light year is the distance light travels in a year, about 6 trillion miles.) Even for this closest star, if there were a massive planet in orbit that pulled it 50 mil- lion miles either way (half as far as the earth’s orbit!), the motion would be only about 1/1500 of one degree - extremely hard to detect. 9-42

44  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Are There Other Planets Outside the Solar System? Are There Other Planets Outside the Solar System? The closest star to our solar system is Alpha Centauri, about 4.5 light years away. (A light year is the distance light travels in a year, about 6 trillion miles.) Even for this closest star, if there were a massive planet in orbit that pulled it 50 mil- lion miles either way (half as far as the earth’s orbit!), the motion would be only about 1/1500 of one degree - extremely hard to detect. For any stars farther away, the change of angle due to orbiting planets would be so small that it would be impossible to detect. 9-43

45  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice So How Do We Know That There Are Planets Out There? So How Do We Know That There Are Planets Out There? All known matter, including stars, is composed of elements found on the periodic table. Every atom of every element known has a nucleus with electrons sur- rounding it. + - - - - - - + + + + - Simplified “Planetary model of the Atom” 9-44

46  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 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 (e.g., when an electric current is run through a gas) or dark as they absorb it (e.g., when they are between us and the interior of a star). HydrogenFluorine Oxygen Below: Emission spectra of three common elements showing colors. 9-45 Absorption Absorption spectrum of hydrogen, converted to black and white graph

47  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT’S IN A STAR? In a laboratory, we see an emission spectrum of bright lines against a dark background. 9-46 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 temporarily 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 (not in its interior).

48  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice What Does This Have To Do With Planets? Reports of planets around other stars are based on periodic fluctuation in the color (wavelength) of light from those stars. Those who are looking for planets interpret this as a Doppler shift due to the stars being pulled toward and 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 9-47

49  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice How Much Would a Planet Move a Star? The accepted value of the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second. (This is not a measured amount but an agreed-upon definition.) Astronomers calculate that a Saturn-size planet or- biting a star would give it a Doppler shift corre- sponding to a periodic movement of the star 3 m/sec (a typical walking speed) toward us, away from us, and so on. This is only about one part in 10 8, or one part in a hundred million! Since we cannot directly measure the speed of the star’s light, we must instead look for a periodic fluct- uation in its wavelength. 9-48

50  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice How Much Doppler Shift Are We Talking About? Most wavelengths are reported to the nearest nanometer (a billionth of a meter), or in some cases, to the nearest 0.1 nm. These can be measured with sensitive enough equip- ment. A few wavelengths are given to 7 digits. However, in the case of the Lyman-  transition of hydrogen, the accepted value is 8 digits, 121.56701 nm. THESE ARE NOT DIRECT MEASUREMENTS, but are a weighted average of many other measurements. That is, some are above and some are below - even under ideal laboratory circumstances. Even if these were direct measurements, a Doppler shift of 3 m/s would require us to be able to detect wavelengths of 121.56701 ± 0.000001 nm. No equipment in the world is cap- able of this kind of precision! 9-49

51  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Problems Obtaining Precise Wavelength Measurements In An Observatory If there is the slightest interference or vibration in the laboratory, equipment, or environment, precision to more than a few digits becomes impossible. An observatory on a mountaintop cannot obtain this kind of vibration-free precision because motors con- stantly move the telescope to keep up with the stars. In addition, the atmosphere continually distorts star- light. To correct the distortion, the best ground-based telescopes use computer-controlled flexible mirrors whose shapes are adjusted hundreds of times a second by hundreds of motors. The constantly changing shape of the mirrors automatically limits the precision of wave- length measurements. 9-50

52  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Actual Technique Used To Estimate Velocity of Stars to ± 3 m/s The wavelength of the starlight is not even measured! Instead, an optical filter containing low-pressure io- dine vapor is mounted to the telescope. The absorp- tion lines of the iodine in the filter are used as a stan- dard reference to compare to the calcium absorption lines from the stars. Both sets of lines are projected into an instrument called a CCD (charge-coupled device). If the CCD de- tects that the star’s lines change wavelength or broad- en (as compared to the iodine reference), astronomers conclude that the star is moving. 9-51

53  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice SOURCES OF MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY A CCD detects the energy of photons imparted to individual pixels. However, the pixel size is measured in microns - at least ten times larger than the wavelength of light being studied. The amount of spectrum shifting expected from a star moving at ± 3 m/s is estimated at only the width of a dozen or so atoms! This is far smaller than the size of each pixel in the CCD. Results come from calculation, not direct measurement. The pixels themselves are subject to manufacturing defects, distortion, and electrical noise. It is doubtful that any equipment in the world is capable of the precision needed to measure a star moving at 3 m/s! 9-52

54  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice POSSIBLE SOURCES OF ERROR 1. Vibration due to telescope tracking motors. 2. Atmospheric distortion. 3. Vibration due to mirror shape correction motors. 4. Ground vibration (traffic, earthquakes, etc.). 5. Moving space debris between us and the star. 6. Defects in pixels on the CCD. 7. Electrical noise. 8. Faulty calculations or assumptions. 9-53 Is it reasonable to believe that our measurements are accurate to the nearest 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 of a meter?

55  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 9-54 NATURAL SOURCES OF ERROR A change in apparent wavelength means only that there is relative motion between the light source and the observer. The star could be moving, but we could be the ones moving instead. A person sitting at the north or south pole has no linear velocity due to the earth’s rotation, while one at the equator moves over 460 meters/second. The speed of an observatory due to this rotation is somewhere between these two numbers. For a while, the observatory moves nearer to a star that starts at the horizon. This produces a blue shift. After the star passes its highest point in the sky the observatory moves away from it, inducing a red shift. Thus, unless the star is observed at exactly the same time each night, the earth’s rotation may lead to incorrect measurements.

56  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice 9-55 MORE NATURAL SOURCES OF ERROR The moon pulls the earth back and forth every month. Unless this is taken into account, the measurements may be incorrect. The earth orbits the sun at over 18,000 meters/sec. If a star is more or less in the same plane as the earth’s orbit, the difference between our most rapid approach to it and our most rapid departure is over 36,000 meters/sec. This difference must be taken into account. sun star approaching star at 18,000 m/s moving away from star at 18,000 m/s Because of weather and high demand for huge telescopes, specific stars are observed only occasionally. There may be many other fluctuations we don’t notice.

57  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice A “GLARING” OVERSIGHT When we measure starlight, we have no way to observe the center of the star. All we observe is the outer layer, or photosphere. In any star, there is a constant interaction between the force of gravity pulling inward and the force of heat expansion pushing outward. The photosphere can move toward and away from us without the star moving, because STARS PULSATE! Since we can never be sure we are observing at exactly the right time, we may only be detecting the pulsation of the photosphere. 9-56

58  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice Is There Life On Other Planets? We don’t even know for sure that there are planets outside the solar system. Reports of planets around other stars are based on periodic fluctuation in the wavelength of light from those stars, interpreted to mean that an orbiting com- panion is pulling the star alternately to- ward and away from us. However, even if there really is some- thing there, the com- panion need not be a planet; it could be a brown dwarf star. Even if the objects really are planets, they would have to be very large and very close to their stars to produce enough fluctuation to be seen from earth. They would have far too much gravity and heat to support life. NASAPhotoNASAPhoto 9-57

59  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR LIFE TO EXIST 1. Out of all the elements that exist in nature or have been manufactured artificially, only Carbon is capable of forming the long chains needed in living things. (Any more elements discovered in the future beyond atomic number 112 would be too unstable to form chains.) Thus, if life exists any- where, it has to be carbon-based. 2. The chemistry of life can occur without oxygen in its gase- ous form, but it cannot occur without liquid water. This com- pound is needed to bring in nutrients and remove wastes. 3. Every alleged planet proposed so far would have to be so close to its star that it would be extremely hot. Carbon compounds would break down and water would immediately turn to biologically useless steam. LIFE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE ON SUCH PLANETS. 9-58

60  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice ARE THERE OTHER PLANETS OUTSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM? The media tell us that hundreds of planets have been discov- ered outside the solar system. NASAPhotoNASAPhoto It’s all based on wishful thinking. There is no compelling evidence that even ONE exists. Even if it did, it couldn’t support life anyway. It’s all based on wishful thinking. There is no compelling evidence that even ONE exists. Even if it did, it couldn’t support life anyway. 9-59

61  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice LIFE IN SPACE? THE BIBLE SAYS NO! Rom. 5:12 - through Adam sin and its effects entered the kosmos - the whole universe. The whole universe is decaying. If beings in space never sinned, it would be unjust to subject them to decay. The effects of Adam’s sin even reached heaven. Jesus had to take His blood into the Holy of Holies to purify it (Heb. 9:22-24). Deut. 4:32 - from one end of the heavens to the other, God has never dealt with anyone the way He did with Israel. If extraterrestrials sinned, God never gave them the same chance for redemption. This would be unjust and contrary to His nature. Humans sinned only after Satan tempted them. If beings on other planets sinned too, how long was he planet-hopping, and were we his first victims? 1 Cor. 15 - Jesus, the Last Adam, came to undo what the first Adam did. If beings on other planets sinned, how many planets would He have to die on? Would He have to be the “Last Zorblatt” on some other planet? Heb. 7:27 - Jesus died once and for all. 2 Pet. 3:10 - when Jesus comes back to judge the earth, the rest of the present universe will pass away. Eph. 3:10 - The purpose of the church is so that God can display His manifold wisdom to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. The church consists only of us, RIGHT HERE ON EARTH! God needs only one planet to show His wisdom and majesty. 9-60

62  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice WHAT ABOUT UFOs? Most can be explained by natural causes (reflected light, secret military aircraft, etc.) But what about those that can’t? Satan can make himself seem like an angel of light. When God allows it, he can interact with the physical world and even do things to people’s bodies (Job 1:16-19, 2:6-7). In the last days he will deceive many. By making people believe that UFO’s have the answers to all our problems, he is able to turn them away from God. Hypnotists have been able to plant seemingly real memories of things that never happened. In the same way Satan can make people think they’ve been on a UFO, even throwing in a few bruises and punctures for good measure. UFO reports of 70 years ago told of little green men in flying saucers. Now they describe beings with large heads and catlike eyes, in ships capable of incredible maneuvers. Either the aliens and their ships have evolved, or else Satan knows what we expect and makes sure we get it. 9-61

63  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice WHY DO PEOPLE WANT SO MUCH TO FIND LIFE IN SPACE? On this planet we are faced with suffering, death, war, uncertainty about the future, loneli- ness, and a sense of meaningless- ness. UFO’S HAVE THE ANSWER! (And you never have to repent!) Of course, God has the answer too - but HE RE- QUIRES YOU TO REPENT. No, let’s go back to the UFO’s be- cause then we can live any way we feel like! NASA Photo 9-62

64  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice One of the Best Arguments Against Visitors From Space: SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) One of the Best Arguments Against Visitors From Space: SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) Since the 1960s, scientists who strongly believe in extraterrestrial life have been searching the skies for radio sig- nals from space. They have had ZERO success. Billions of dollars have been spent, with billions more planned. If aliens are already here, why would people who believe in them keep looking for them in space? 9-63

65  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice LIFE ON MARS? NASA photo of ALH84001, a po- tato size meteor- ite found in Ant- arctica in 1984. In 1996 NASA an- nounced that the meteorite came from Mars about 16 million years ago, and that it contained chem- icals known as aromatic hydro- carbons showing the possibility of life on Mars. PROBLEMS: 1. It was believed to be from Mars because it contained a mix- ture of gases similar to that discovered by the Viking lander. But if it was formed 4.5 billion years ago and sat undisturbed until it was knocked off Mars 16 million years ago, why should it contain traces of the modern Martian atmosphere? 2. Life is only one of hundreds of possible sources of aromatic hydrocarbons. 9-64

66  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice But What If There’s Water on Mars? 1. Though water is necessary for life, it is not suffic- ient for life. Many other factors are needed in order for life to exist. 2. The Bible hints that God may have used water (hy- drogen and oxygen) as the raw material from which the earth was formed -- see 2 Pet. 3:5. If so, it stands to reason that it would be found in space too. 3. Ps. 148:4 tells us that there are waters above the heavens, so it would be a surprise not to find traces of it somewhere. The presence of water does not automatically indicate the presence of life. 9-65

67  2007 by David A. Prentice Copyright 2007 by David A. Prentice SUMMARY: 1. The biochemical problems with trying to assemble even the simplest imaginable cell are insurmountable by natural processes alone. A reasonable person would conclude that something (or someone) outside of nature may be responsible. 2. Belief in extraterrestrial life is an issue of religion and is not supported by scientific evidence. 3. The Bible makes it plain that God is responsible for life, and that it exists only where He wants it to. 9-66


Download ppt "Contents: Overheads to be used with Chapter 9 of “Truth in the Balance,” copyright 2003 by David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. REVISION DATE 11/24/2014 This."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google