1 / 82

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

WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? By David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. Email prentice@instruction.com. ?. ?. ?. HOW DO YOU K NOW WHAT YOU K NOW? Or at least what you think you know?. ?. ?. ?. WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK:. Evolution is science. Creation and Intelligent Design

norton
Télécharger la présentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. ? ? ? HOW DO YOUKNOW WHAT YOU KNOW? Or at least what youthinkyou 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 havepersonal 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 haspersonal experience. 2. There are no eyewitness accounts except theBible, which is unacceptable to skeptics. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? ThroughLOGIC 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 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. 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 oneof 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 EVOLUTION: CREATION: 1. Everythingmust beexplainable 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 eitherNATURALISM, 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 sciencein spite ofthe 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 aprior commitment, acommitment to 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 areforced by oura priori adherence tomaterial causesto create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that producematerial explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. materialism. Moreover, that materialism is anabsolute, for wecannot 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 multibillionyear 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 EVOLUTION: CREATION: 1. Everythingmust beexplainable 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. God is powerful enough to useany method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is theonly possibility. 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 acceptednot because it can be provedby logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, isclearly 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 isnot 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 EVOLUTION: CREATION: 1. Everythingmust beexplainable 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. God is powerful enough to useany method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is theonly possibility. 3. Since evolution has never been seen in human history, it must be very slow. The universe and earthhave tobe 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 bebillions 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 EVOLUTION: CREATION: 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation:One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. 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. 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 EVOLUTION: CREATION: 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation:One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. 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. 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. 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. Origin of the Elements 1 2 HYDROGEN HELIUM 1 4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LITHIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CARBON NITROGEN OXYGEN FLUORINE NEON 7 9 11 12 14 16 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SODIUM MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM SILICON PHOSPHOROUS SULPHUR CHLORINE ARGON 23 24 27 28 31 32 35 40 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 POTASSIUM CALCIUM SCANDIUM TITANIUM VANADIUM CHROMIUM MANGANESE IRON COBALT NICKEL COPPER ZINC GALLIUM GERMANIUM ARSENIC SELENIUM BROMINE KRYPTON 39 40 45 48 51 51 55 56 58 59 64 65 70 73 75 79 80 84 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 RUBIDIUM STRONTIUM YTTRIUM ZIRCONIUM NIOBIUM MOLYBDENUM TECHNETIUM RUTHENIUM RHODIUM PALLADIUM SILVER CADMIUM INDIUM TIN ANTIMONY TELLURIUM IODINE XENON 85 88 89 91 93 96 99 101 103 106 108 112 115 119 122 126 127 131 55 56 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 CESIUM BARIUM HAFNIUM TANTALUM TUNGSTEN RHENIUM OSMIUM IRIDIUM PLATINUM GOLD MERCURY THALLIUM LEAD BISMUTH POLONIUM ASTATINE RADON 133 137 178 181 184 186 190 192 195 197 201 204 207 209 210 219 222 87 88 104 105 106 107 108 109 FRANCIUM RADIUM RUTHERFORD- DUBNIUM SEABORGIUM BOHRIUM HASSIUM MEITNERIUM 223 226 IUM 261 262 263 264 265 268 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. La-Lu 57- 71 Ac-Lr 89-103 57 LANTHANUM 139 89 ACTINIUM 227 La Ac 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 CERIUM PRASEODYM- NEODYMIUM PROMETHEUM SAMARIUM EUROPIUM GADOLINIUM TERBIUM DYSPROSIUM HOLMIUM ERBIUM THULIUM YTTERBIUM LUTETIUM 140 IUM 141 144 147 147 152 157 159 162 165 167 169 173 175 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 THORIUM PROTACTIN- URANIUM NEPTUNIUM PLUTONIUM AMERICIUM CURIUM BERKELIUM CALIFORNIUM EINSTEINIUM FERMIUM MENDELEV- NOBELIUM LAWRENCIUM 232 IUM 231 238 237 244 243 247 247 251 252 257 IUM 258 259 260 Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho E Tm Yb Lu Th Pa U Np PuAmCm 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-1 1 1 1 0 hydrogen-2 1 2 1 1 hydrogen-3 1 3 1 2 helium-3 2 3 2 1 helium-4 2 4 2 2 NONEXISTENT5 lithium-6 3 6 3 3 lithium-7 3 7 3 4 NONEXISTENT8 beryllium-9 4 9 4 5 boron-10 5 10 5 5 boron-11 5 11 5 6 carbon-12 6 12 6 6 carbon-13 6 13 6 7 carbon-14 6 14 6 8 nitrogen-14 7 14 7 7 nitrogen-15 7 15 7 8 oxygen-16 8 16 8 8 oxygen-17 8 17 8 9 oxygen-18 8 18 8 10 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 0.000138% of the Helium known. • A H-1 and He-4 nucleus together would have mass 5. Oops, it doesn’t exist either. • Two He-4 nuclei would have a mass of 8, but that doesn’t exist either. A Big Bang would have expanded too fast to combine more than two particles at a time, and there are no other com-binations of two. We are blocked at every turn when trying to make heavier elements out of the two elements that would have been present in a Big Bang.

  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.

More Related