Monday, March 21, 2011

Spontaneous Generation



By Eric Von Salzen

I’ve just read “The Grand Design”, the new book by the great mathematician Stephen Hawking (and the less-famous physicist Leonard Mlodinow). When the book was announced a few months ago, I wrote on this site:

I’m looking forward to reading Stephen Hawking’s new book, in which he argues that we do not need to believe in God to explain the existence of the universe. Instead, we are to believe in “M-theory”, which involves 11 space-time dimensions, “vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space.” Boy, that’s a relief! Just good old common sense, and none of that religious mumbo-jumbo!

I repeat those words now, not because I’m proud of my rhetoric (although I am), but to alert you to my bias.

To a substantial extent, the claim that Hawking's book proves that there’s no need to assume a role for God in creation is publisher’s hype. It's a good way to generate buzz, but that's not really what the book is primarily about. The book is primarily a summary, for the intelligent lay reader, of current scientific thinking about the origin and nature of the universe in light of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, a sort of “Cosmology for Dummies.”

“Dummies” is a relative term, of course. Although Hawking (I’m going to refer to the author as Hawking, and not Hawking and Mlodinow because Hawking’s the famous name; sorry Leonard) – although Hawking makes these subjects as accessible to the intelligent lay reader as possible, it's pretty deep stuff. At some point along the way, even if you are much smarter than I am (you probably are), you’re likely to find you just can't grasp what Hawking is saying. At best, you'll be able to figure out what the subject matter under discussion is, but not the substance of the discussion. It's like someone who just finished a second year college German class eavesdropping on a discussion between Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche: you can't understand what they're saying, but you might be able to figure out the topic. If you’re as interested in the science that Hawking discusses as I am, you should enjoy this book.

But for purposes of this blog, what is of interest in this book is what Hawking claims regarding religion. These claims are found primarily in the second chapter, which discusses the origins of religious belief, and then later toward the end of the book, where Hawking discusses design in creation.

In Chapter 2, Hawking portrays religion as the invention of primitive peoples who were ignorant of science, but wanted to understand how and why the physical world worked the way it did. In their ignorance they invented gods “to lord it over every aspect of human life.” Once science came along to explain the mysteries of the physical world, there was no further need for religion. As a wise man (not Hawking) said, “When I was a child, I spake as a child”, etc. Yet, religion stubbornly hangs on like some cultural vermiform appendix; most humans haven’t yet “put away childish things”.

There are two things wrong with Hawking’s argument. First, there’s no evidence that religion was invented primarily to explain the physical world. Second, even if that were the original purpose of religion, that doesn’t mean that religion today has no broader and deeper purposes that science has not rendered obsolete.

I’ll take Hawking’s word on matters of math or physics, because he’s clearly an expert, but on the origin of religion, Hawking can claim no special expertise. He's obviously a very smart man, but he offers no evidence that he’s studied comparative religion, cultural anthropology, paleontology, or any of the other disciplines that would be implicated in a serious investigation of the origin of religion. To support his proposition that religion arose to explain the physical world, Hawking cites creation myths from Viking and Amerindian cultures, the former around 1,000-years old, the latter about 6,600 years older than that. Yet, cave paintings, burial practices, devotional objects, etc., found by archeologists suggest that human beings have had some sense of the divine for several tens of thousands of years. The origins of religion are lost in the mists of time.

It’s undoubtedly true that some primitive religions we know about used stories about gods to explain aspects of the physical world, but that doesn't mean that this was the primary purpose for which religion was “invented”. It could just as well be the case that ancient peoples, having become conscious of the divine, then attributed to divinity responsibility for aspects of the physical world. Let’s take a modern-day example. Today some Christians believe in the concept of "intelligent design", the notion that God is responsible for characteristics of plants and animals, such as the cilium of the eye, that (supposedly) cannot be adequately explained by contemporary science, i.e., by evolution. But the adherents to intelligent design did not invent God to explain the development of the eye. It works the other way around: their belief in God came first, and that belief led them to invent the idea of intelligent design. There is no reason to suppose that ancient or primitive peoples could not have developed their ideas about religion in the same way. Thus, the ancient Klamath Indians might not have invented gods to explain the existence of Crater Lake, as Hawking assumes; they might have regarded the lake as confirmation of the gods in whom they already believed for other reasons.

The mythologies that I know a little about, ancient Greek, the Norse, the Irish, do include stories that use gods or other supernatural characters to explain aspects of the physical universe, but they do a great deal more. When Poseidon wrecks the ships on which Odysseus seeks to return home from Troy, the story is not just an explanation for storms at sea. That’s why we still read the Odyssey.

This is certainly true of the Old Testament. The ancient Hebrew stories do explain various aspects of the physical world, but that isn’t their primary purpose. The principal lesson of Genesis 1 is not about the mechanics of creation (pace my creationist friends), but about the relationship between God and the creation. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah may have its origins in some ancient volcanic eruption, but that’s not why the story is read today.

Moreover, whatever may have been the motivation for the “invention” of early religions, today modern religions have very little to do with explaining the mysteries of the physical world that science now promises to reveal. If Hawking thinks that many modern Christians would abandon their religion if they understood what a quark is, he lives in a different world than I do. Some Christians, it is true, have difficulty accepting the fact that science tells us that some Bible stories are not literally true: that the universe was not created in seven days, but in less than a microsecond, that the sun only seemed to stop in the sky while the Lord gave the Israelites victory over the Amorites, and so on. But this doesn’t prove that these Christians believe in God in order to explain the physical world. On the contrary, their belief in God takes precedence over explanations of the physical world that these believers feel are inconsistent with their faith. I’m not a Biblical literalist myself, and I personally hope that the day will come that creationists and other literalists, or their children, will finally come to accept that the teachings of science about evolution, the Big Bang, and other issues are fully reconcilable with Christian faith. When they do, that will not keep them away from church on Sundays.

Hawking returns to religion toward the end of the book, where he addresses scientific findings that some people think support the existence of a creator God. The fundamental laws of physics seem to be “fine-tuned” to create a universe that supports the existence of human beings. For example, human and all other life that we know about depends on the element carbon. Carbon is created in the heart of dying stars and is dispersed into space when the star explodes, whence it can become a constituent of a life-supporting planet. If the laws of nuclear physics were only slightly different, little or no carbon (or oxygen, for that matter) would be created in stars, and life as we know it would be impossible. Every other fundamental force in nature within this universe falls in a narrow range that is suitable for creating an environment in which life is possible.

At one time scientists thought that these fundamental laws of nature represented the only way that things could be. The science that Hawking describes however, shows that these fundamental laws came into existence in the earliest moments of the Big Bang that created our universe, and it was entirely possible that different physical laws, with different values, could have come into being in that process. Indeed, the odds seem to be overwhelmingly against the existence of a universe compatible with human life.

Thus, science poses a question – why is our universe designed to be friendly to us? – for which religion may provide the answer: God. Indeed, some astronomers and cosmologists embrace a belief in God, at least a kind of Deism, for this reason.

Hawking acknowledges this challenge to the pretensions of science to answer every question without reference to God. His response is that equations that underlie the theory of the universe called M-theory show that a huge number of universes are possible. Indeed, the theory implies that in some sense all these alternate universes exist. The number of universes predicted by M Theory is not, technically, infinite, but it is huge: 10 to the 500th power, or a one followed by 500 zeros. You'll excuse me, I hope, if I don't set it out here. Out of that huge number of universes, virtually any set of physical laws must exist in one of them, so our life-friendly universe could come about without any divine intervention. Human life, of course, could only have arisen in this one particular universe.

The other creation problem, which exists for any universe that is supposed to have a beginning, is how the beginning began. If our universe (or all the 10 to the 500th power universes) began in a Big Bang, where did the stuff that went bang come from? Religions can answer that question, although perhaps not every religion’s answer is satisfactory to everyone. The oft-told story (including told by Hawking himself) is that in some religion the world was thought to rest on the back of a giant turtle; and what did the turtle stand on? Another turtle, and that one on yet another: It’s turtles all the way down. In Christian and Jewish scripture, the answer to the ex nihilo problem is that in the beginning God created the universe from nothing. Genesis explains how he did it: “God said let there be light, and there was light", etc. It is nonsense to ask what happened before the beginning.

What is the Big Bang theory’s answer to this problem? If we run the movie of the expanding universe backward, eventually all the matter and all the energy is compressed into an infinitely small space. And then what? Hawking’s answer is that entire universe (and all 10 to the 500th power universes?) simply created itself from nothing. This is possible, he says, because, in a sense, a universe is nothing. The total energy of the universe it seems is zero, because gravity represents negative energy that exactly balances out the positive energy of all the matter in the universe; the net energy is zero. Thus:

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing . . . . Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Hawking seems to be quite comfortable with his answers to the question how our universe, so apparently fine-tuned for life like ours, came into being. He may, for all I know, be right. I don't begin to understand the math, and he's one of the smartest (if not the smartest) mathematician in the world.

As it happens, at the same time I was reading “The Grand Design” I was reading another book, “Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer” by C. S. Lewis. We have a discussion group at our church that is reading “Letters to Malcolm” together. I found this passage in Lewis’s book:

[T]he sciences are always pushing further back the realm of mere “brute fact.” But no scientist, I suppose, believes that the process could ever reach completion. At the very least, there must always remain the utterly “brute” fact, the completely opaque datum, that a universe – or, rather, this universe, with its determinate character – exists . . . .

What would Lewis make of Hawking? Lewis thought no scientist could imagine claiming that he had reached a complete understanding of how it is that this universe exists. Jack, meet Steve. Steve, meet Jack.

So, as I say, Hawking’s math may all check out, but still, I’m troubled. Is it really more sensible to assume that a gazillion universes, all but one of which is unknown (and presumably unknowable) to us, created themselves from nothing, rather than to believe that God created this one universe in a way that made life possible? I think Occam's razor favors the second hypothesis, but maybe that's just me.

Let me make one thing clear. My own religious faith does not depend on the inability of science to explain where the universe came from or why its physical laws are the way they are. I’m perfectly happy to assume that someday science will answer all these questions (although I remain skeptical about Hawking’s claim that science has already done so). My faith is based on the resurrection of a Jewish carpenter almost 2,000 years ago and the promises he made to mankind.

So, read “The Grand Design” if you’re interested in the science. It’s short, only 181 pages, and easy reading. Or, if you’d like a greater challenge, read “Letters to Malcolm”. It’s even shorter (124 pages), but you’ll work harder at it, and get more from it, I believe.

78 comments:

  1. In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate but never completed. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

    In my ebook "the greatest achievement in life," on comparative mysticism, is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

    E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As mentioned above that Hawking portrays religion as the invention of primitive peoples who were ignorant of science, but wanted to understand how and why the physical world worked the way it did, but in their ignorance they invented gods “to lord it over every aspect of human life. The way in which Hawking mentioned seems to be that science is everything and it could be used to explain everything that is surrounded in this universe. However, if we would observe our surrounding, many things still could not be explained by means of science and there must be God in controlling of this universe. The following are the extracts:

    a)Why is it that there are different races of people in this world with different skin colours that could communicate in different languages and/or dialects? Initially when a couple of human beings have been created, what caused the races of human beings to be divided in such a way those people that could speak in the same language could live together? What caused human beings to speak various types of languages that could associate with each other? Not only that, why is it that there is soul in every human being at the time of his/her birth?

    b)Some people might support that human beings were evolved from apes. Their assumption would has been found to be contradictorily in nature since none of the apes could speak human languages. As you could not find any apes in this world that could not speak in human languages, how could human beings be evolved from apes?

    c) When water has been evaporated to the sky, it would remain there until the stage that it starts raining. Now a number of questions have been raised here pertaining to the evaporation:
    1) Why is it that the water droplets that have been formed through evaporation would remain in the sky instead of going beyond the sky to the outer space?
    2) Why it that the air, that consists of oxygen, hydrogen and etc., would remain in this earth that would enable human beings to survive?
    3) Why is it that human beings and other creatures are created merely in this earth instead of in other planets?
    4) Why is it that when the cloud turns dark and yet it does not rain immediately? As we know, the water turns up to be water droplets and cause them to ascend to the sky due to water droplets have been explained by scientists to be lighter than air. As much water droplets ascend to the sky, it is accumulated and some even might join with other water droplets to form bigger water drops. Once the cloud has turned up to be dark, the density and the mass of the water in the sky is heavy and yet sometimes it does not rain and could remain there for sometimes. Some might even be blown from one area to another without giving rise to rain. No matter how the rain falls, the rain would never fall all within a minute to cause a great impact to the destruction of environment and/or buildings and/or etc. What caused the earth to be created with atmosphere, such as, oxygen, so that human beings could live? It is irrational to assume that it could be due to the earth, atmosphere, human beings and etc., could be created co-incidentally.

    d) Human beings surely could not stand on the earth if this earth were created without gravity. What made this earth to be created so perfectly that human beings and gravity could co-exist in this earth? For instance, if this earth were created at the absence of gravity to enable people to stand on the earth, people would float on the earth wherever they were. What if human beings were created in the moon or in other planets, all would perish without oxygen? What if human beings were created in a planet without the nature of evaporation and water droplets could not be evaporated, all human beings would die without water one day. What made this earth to be so perfect that water could be evaporated and then rain later?

    ReplyDelete
  3. When creatures were first created in this earth, they were created in this earth definitely not by co-incidence. This is due to this living earth has been created in perfect nature, such as, the existence of oxygen, carbon dioxide, gravity and etc. Not only that, oxygen and hydrogen could not be blown out to the space due to the boundary of atmosphere. Atmosphere boundary could only be found available on this earth while creatures live instead of in other planets. What factor that causes the atmosphere to be so perfect that oxygen and hydrogen could only exist on this earth and it could not be blown away into the space. Water could continuously be evaporated to the sky and ultimately to turn up to be rain. What made this earth to be so perfect as compared to other planets so that human beings could dwell in it? Any absence of the above element, such as, oxygen or gravity, could cause human beings to be in trouble. Something must have created it in order that this earth can be perfected. The only possibility is God instead of gravity or quantum theory. This is due to creation could never be so perfected if the earth is created by chance through gravity or quantum theory in which science has no solution.

    If creation were merely through gravity or quantum theory, all creations in this earth would turn up to be spontaneous. If this earth would be created spontaneously, it would never be perfect. This is due to:
    If this earth were created by luck and the creation of human beings might not be created to be accompanied with the creation of oxygen, all human beings could not survive at the time of their creation.
    If this earth were created by luck and the creation of human beings might not be accompanied with the creation of gravity, all human beings could float on this earth as if they were on the moon.
    If this earth were created by luck and this earth were not provided way of evaporation to enable water to turn up to be water droplets to reach the sky so as to give rain later, none of the human beings could survive without water due to there isn’t rain for months and years as a result of the absence of water evaporation system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hawking quoted:

    'Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing . . . . Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.'

    Was Hawking born prior to the creation of the universe? As he was not born prior to the creation of the universe, he could not be the eye-witness for the proof that this earth was created by gravity. As he was not born prior to the creation of the universe, all his theory pertaining to how the universe was created, was merely from his wild imagination without tested and eye-witnessing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.

    Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.

    If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.

    Newton’s principle even mentions that every object in this universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between two objects. This theory gives the implication that there have to be some objects or masses in order to attract force, i.e. gravity. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which gravity could exist at the absence of objects or masses prior to the formation of this universe.

    Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly puts quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.

    Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:

    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.

    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:

    The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
    U = mV
    where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity

    From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.

    Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Under the Big Bang theory, our universe sprang into existence as 'singularity' around 13.7 billion years ago that caused the existence of black hole that would exert intense gravitational pressure. The above seems logically at a glance. However, detailed examination of Big Bang theory would find this theory is rather absurd and illogical. Consideration has to be taken in about whether there would be any space prior to our universe to spring into existence.
    Let's assume that there would not be any space prior to our universe to spring into existence. A question would be raised about the reliability of Big Bang theory. How could there be any force or substance to be in existence at the absence of space for the generation of Big Big theory to play in the creation of universe? There should be a certain space in existence so as to enable the Big Bang theory to play for the creation of universe. If there be no space prior to the creation of big bang theory, how could this universe spring into existence at the absence of space for the creation of Big Bang theory? Thus, Big Bang theory does not seem to be justifiable when it is viewed that the Universe would spring into being at the absence of space.
    Let's assume that there could be space prior to the creation of this universe in which our universe would spring into existence. A question could be raised. Would there be any beginning of the space for the generation of Big Bang theory to play prior to the creation of universe? How could this entire space come out prior to the creation of this universe? Would there be any witness whether Big Bang theory did exist or it could simply be unrealistic assumption of theory that comes out from human mind?
    The above have put the reliability of Big Bang theory to be in doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let's assume that this universe should be formed through Big Bang theory. Questions have to be raised. Why is it that Big Bang theory could create perfect galaxies that a planet would revolve around another instead of the danger that anyone of the planets would crash with another easily and that would cause the earth not to be in secure position? For instance, the moon always revolves around the earth and it would not crash it and the distance between them remains constant. The same is for the earth to the sun. How could Big Bang theory be able to create these perfect galaxies unless there is one behind that controls all the planets that causes perfect galaxies to be formed. For religious people, i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Muslims, call it as God.
    For instance, if this world would be formed in random order through the Big bang theory, the following events would appear: The earth might be formed too near the sun and to cause many inhabitants to be hurt; or the earth might be flying everywhere in the universe without guidance due to these be formed in random order through Big Bang theory; or the sun might well be formed stagnant in one place and leaving the earth to fly everywhere among the galaxies so much so that all the inhabitants might not be able to enable sunlight; or the earth might fly everywhere or even worse, the danger to hit against the sun; or etc. What if the earth would be formed too far from the sun, all the inhabitants would be in the darkness for 24 hours. Currently, all the galaxies in this world seem to revolve around the sun instead of the other way round. It seems to be that there must be some kind of supernatural being controls it. Religious people call it, God.
    If the universe would be created from Big Bang theory, the above is the likeliness of the world since nothing is controlling it and everything is formed in random or messy order. The whole universe would be disorganized and one could find hard to determine which planet was rotating against which.
    From the above, it would come to the conclusion that Big Bang theory is unrealistic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are many galaxies in this world and yet there is orderliness among each group of galaxies in which each orbit its own centre of mass. For instance, if the universe would be generated by itself through Big Bang Theory or Steady Stage Theory, the likeliness of disorderliness would occur that each galaxy would not orbit its own centre of mass. Instead, all the planets of the galaxies would fly around everywhere aimlessly in this universe and that would cause all the inhabitants on the earth to be in danger due to the likeliness that the earth to be crashed by other galaxies. Some galaxies might be even worse, to the extent, hitting each other. This is due to nothing would force the new galaxy to be formed to move in such a way that it would orbit its own centre of mass. It seems to be that each time when a new galaxy is formed, the same pattern, i.e. each would orbit its own centre of mass, would appear. The orderliness of all the galaxies in their movements around their own centre of mass gives the impression that there should be one that is in control of the entire universe. Religious people call it, God.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The word, universe, as mentioned below refers to the entire system that is made up of many galaxies instead of a galaxy by itself.
    Big Bang Theory assumes that galaxies are advancing towards the edge of the universe as a result of the expansion of universe. The following are the few possibilities that our galaxy would be in this entire universe:
    a)As the universe would be expanding continuously, it is rational to presume that all galaxies, and these include our planets, would be influenced by the expansion of the universe to advance towards the boundary of the universe. As our galaxy would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of the expansion of this universe, our earth could still identify blue shift due to we are not in the centre of the universe. Instead, we would be in the midst of galaxies that facing the same direction to move forward towards the corner of the universe. As all the galaxies (these include us) would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of its expansion, they would be many galaxies that would be many miles behind the earth moving (as the same direction as our galaxy) towards the corner of universe. As there would be galaxies moving behind our galaxy advancing towards the boundary of the universe as us, there would appear blue shift since we could still see some galaxies advancing to us in which its movement could be to bypass our galaxy towards the corner of universe.
    b)It is rational to assume that our galaxy is in accelerating speed in which many galaxies would be moving far away from us. As a result of it, it reflects red shift. However, as our galaxy would be travelling faster than other galaxies, there would be a likeliness that our galaxy would overtake other galaxies that are moving ahead of us towards the corner of universe and that would reflect unavoidably blue shift. As our galaxy gets closer to those galaxies that are moving ahead of us since our galaxy is accelerating, those galaxies that are behind us would show red shift and those that are ahead of us in which our galaxy would overtake them soon as a result of accelerating, would show blue shift. Thus, it is inevitable to have red shift as well as blue if our galaxy is in the midst of those galaxies to advance towards the corner of the universe.
    From the above illustrations, it would come to the conclusion that as long as our galaxy was among the galaxies to proceed towards the corner of the universe, we would still be able to identify blue shift.
    Let’s assume that our earth would be stagnant in the centre of the universe, the above events would not occur since we would only see red shift instead of blue.
    To presume that our earth would be in the centre of the universe and all other galaxies would be advancing away from us, is rather irrational and not justifiable.
    The above have caused us to question whether it is accurate to use light from the star that is run through a spectrophotometer so as to determine whether it is red shift or blue for the determination whether the universe would be expanding.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let’s presume that spectrophotometer could be a reliable source to be used to detect all galaxies would be advancing further away from the earth. It might not give any sufficient reason that this entire universe would be expanding on the condition if our universe has already been extended into infinity. If our entire universe has already been extended up to infinity in the beginning of the creation of this universe or somewhere later, the red shift that is reflected in spectrophotometer nowadays could only reflect the advancement of galaxies and it would not imply the further expansion of universe since the space of the universe has already been extended in the infinity without any end initially and needed not to been extended further currently.
    Some might have pointed out that the website below, has computed the size of the universe to prove that there could be a boundary of this universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151 The formula that they use to compute the size of the universe is by means of the basic 184K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion years age of the universe. The above computation is based upon the assumption that the universe would be expanding. As the assumption that the space might not be extended fully and it assumes that the extension of space would progress accordingly with the age of universe as well as the speed of light, the computation of the size of the universe has been done by using the age of the entire universe to be multiplied by the speed of light that travels in space. Now a question has to be raised. If this world would have already been extended to infinity initially, it is inappropriate to use the speed of light to be multiplied by the age of this universe so as to compute the size of the universe since this universe itself would have already been developed into infinity without boundary in the very beginning.
    From the above explanation, it would not be justifiable to conclude that this universe would be expanding simply by observing red shift in the sky since this universe might have already been extended to infinity without end initially in the very beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Refer to the website here: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75 There are about 100 known galaxies that are in blue shifts. As there are so many blue shifts, it is irrational to use many red shifts that have been discovered through Hubble telescope to conclude that this universe would be expanding. The following are the reasons why it is irrational to conclude that the universe would be expanding to support Big Bang Theory:
    a) This universe might have been extended up to infinity in the past and there would have no place currently for further expansion since the space would be in infinity without boundary currently. If that would be so, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this entire universe would be expanding.
    b) Even if this entire universe might have a boundary, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this universe would be expanding due to these blue shifts might reflect there could be some galaxies that would have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of universe for their return. As some of these 100 over galaxies could have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of the universe for their return and yet many still struggling behind in advancing and would have not reached the corner of the universe yet due to the expanse of universe and it would take many and many years for galaxies to reach its corner of the universe for their return, these would have turned up to be more red shifts than blue.
    As the universe might not be expanding as a result of the exceptional cases of above, it is irrational to use many red shifts than blue to conclude this universe would be expanding so as to support Big Bang Theory.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What is radiometric decay or radioactive decay? Radioactive decay is a spontaneous disintegration of a radionuclide accompanied by the emission of ionizing radiation in the form of alpha or beta particles or gamma rays.
    Some might argue that radiometric decay could not cause any decay in the rocks or substance or etc.. If radiometric decay could not cause any influence upon the rock or substance. The parent isotope, such as, Rubidium-87, could still remain to be Rubidium-87 after 50 billion years, instead of turning up to be Strontium-87 (daughter). As the parent isotope, such as Rubidium-87, would turn up to be Strontium-87, in 50 billion years later, it implies that there would be a change of quality as a result of the influence of radioactive decay.
    Do environmental factors have any influence upon radiometric decay? Yes, there is. If environmental factors could not have any influence upon radiometric decay, there should not be any reason for scientists to assume that the half year decay rate from Parent isotopes to Daughter to be constant in the first place.
    The following are the number of websites that have indicated that environmental factors could alter radioactive decay rate despite the assumption that has been established through radiometric dating method to be constant and unchanged:
    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5076971/description.html; http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment; http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_04-05.pdf; http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/; http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/decay.htm
    As the decay rate that has been assumed by scientists in the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or whatever to be in constant rate and yet the actual decay rate might not be constant as a result of the influence of environment, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth that have been computed by scientists to be in billion years would not be reliable. This is by virtue of radiometric dating method has presumed a perfection for decay rate and yet it could be accelerated in reality. As the decay rate could be accelerated, the age of the fossils or rocks or the earth could never be accurate.
    What if the parent isotopes, such as, Samarium-147, so hard that it could resist radiometric decay that it would not cause any change of quality to turn up to be the daughter isotopes, such as, Neodymium-143, the mathematic formula that has been used to compute the age of the fossils or rocks or the earth could not be applicable. This is by virtue of the objects that have been used to measure the ages of the fossils or rocks or the earth have to be established to have parent-daughter relationship. Or else, insisting the use of radioactive dating method would simply give false information about the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What if the parent isotopes, such as, Uranium-235, or whatever, could be so weak that any environmental factors, such as, sun, wind, Noah’s ark and whatever, could accelerate radioactive decay rate and yet it could restore to its original rate at the absence of the influence, the ages of the fossils or rocks or the earth would be falsified as a result of great influence from environment.
    What if the objects that have been presumed by Scientists would not have parent-daughter relationship in reality, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth would be falsified through computation.
    Let’s give you an illustration. The parent isotope, Samarium-147, has found to be the daughter of Neodymium-143 just because they both emit alpha particles instead of physical witness of the transformation of Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147. What if Samarium-147 could be so hard to resist radioactive decay so much so that it could not be transformed into Neodymium-143, the insisting to place these two items together and to establish them to be parent-daughter relationship and to compute the decay rate to be 106 billion years would certainly turn up to be unreliable. What if the parent isotope, let’s say, Samarium-147, would change in quality as a result of radioactive decay, yet it would not turn up to be Neodymium-143 but other source. The insisting to establish these two isotopes to have parent-daughter relationship would falsify the computation of the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth. Anyway, nobody could live in billion of years to witness whether the isotopes, let’s say, Samarium-147, could transform into Neodymium-143. Scientists simply establish their relationship through observing the similarity of emission instead of seeing physical transformation. Thus, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth that have been computed by scientists to be in million or billion years through radiometric dating method would not be reliable.
    From the above analysis, it is irrational to conclude the earth or fossils or rocks to be in million years or billions years as a result of the uncertainty of radiometric decay rate and the questionability whether one substance could be the daughter isotope of another.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The following are the extracts to show the orderliness of the galaxies.
    a)The formation of each new galaxy would follow the same pattern that each orbits around its own centre base:
    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy, The second paragraph of the subtitle, Galaxy, mentions with the phrase, each orbiting their galaxy’s own center of mass. Or in other words, when a first galaxy was formed in this universe in the beginning, it orbits its own centre of mass despite their irregular shapes of design. When the second galaxy was formed, the same pattern would appear that each would orbit each own centre base. And so on and so forth. For instance, if the first galaxy would be generated by Big Bang theory, it would not be possible that each galaxy would orbit each own centre base from the beginning ever since the first galaxy was generated. Indeed, the first galaxy, that would be formed, would be moving in the mess with disorderly manner without guidance instead of orbiting its own centre base if nothing would be controlling the formation of the universe. The outcome (that each galaxy would not be created in such a nice manner that each would orbit its own base) is there would be a possibility that the stars or planets or whatever within each galaxy, that were created, would fly all around the universe without guidance and even to the extent that the stars or planets or whatever in each galaxy, would crash with each other to cause ultimate devastation of the universe so much so that our earth would turn up to be not in secure place. How could Big Bang Theory be able to create the first galaxy in the beginning so much so that it could orbit its centre base especially nothing should have existed before? How could Big Bang theory be able to create the second galaxy to follow suit the first galaxy to oribt its centre base?
    The orderliness of the formation of galaxies ever since its first formation to be that each would orbit each own centre mass, gives the signal that something must have existed in the creation of the universe. Religious people call it God.
    b)Each time when a new galaxy has formed, the same pattern would occur that something would hold this galaxy together so that it would not turn the whole universe into a mess and scientists call it to be gravitational force.
    The following is the extract from the third paragraph of the category, Milky Way from the above website:
    In 1750 the English astronomer Thomas Wright in his An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, speculated (correctly) that the galaxy might be a rotating body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale. The resulting disk of stars can be seen as a band on the sky from our perspective inside the disk
    If nothing would control the entire universe, there would not be any force that would hold the entire galaxy to be in perfect order when a new galaxy would form. If this universe were created by Big Bang theory, the first set of galaxy would turn up to be in the mess that it would not give any warranty that it would orbit its own centre of mass. When the second set of galaxy was formed in the beginning, it would not give any warranty that the universe would hold these two sets of galaxies together in continuity. And so on and so forth. If this universe were created by Big Bang theory, the first set of galaxy would turn up to be in the mess in hitting against each other. The second set of galaxy, that would be created, would be worse than the first without revolving around its own centre of mass but flying around the universe with random order and nothing would hold these two together. And so on and so forth. There must be something that is in control for the creation of this universe. Religious people call it God.

    ReplyDelete
  17. c)When a new spiral galaxy is formed, spiral arms would rotate its own centre with angular velocity. Despite there would be some step-back to alter its own velocity, it would still return to its original velocity and yet the same pattern, angular velocity, maintains to beautify the universe. Besides, most importantly it would return to its own velocity whenever something has caused it to accelerate its speed.
    The following is the extract from third paragraph under the sub-title of Spirals in the same website address as mentioned above:
    In spiral galaxies, the spiral arms do have the shape of approximate logarithmic spirals, a pattern that can be theoretically shown to result from a disturbance in a uniformly rotating mass of stars. Like the stars, the spiral arms rotate around the center, but they do so with constant angular velocity…As stars move through an arm, the space velocity of each stellar system is modified by the gravitational force of the higher density. (The VELOCITY RETURNS TO NORMAL after the stars depart on the other side of the arm.)
    If the spiral galaxy was created by Big Bang theory, it would not give any warranty that the first creation of the existence of spiral galaxy would result in velocity to return to its original speed after its acceleration due to some influence before. What if the spiral galaxy would not return to its original velocity, the spiral galaxy would keep on increasing its speed whenever it is influenced by external factor. The whole spiral galaxy would turn up to be in disaster since it keeps on increasing its speed non-stop since forever increasing speed would cause the heat to rise up and even be burnt up eventually.
    The above show that the nature reflects the existence of God.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What is Big Bang Theory? The following is the definition of Big Bang theory that has been extracted from the third paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, under the sub-title of ‘Big Bang’:
    ‘The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, THE UNIVERSE WAS ONCE IN AN EXTREMELY HOT AND DENSE STATE which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe. After its initial expansion from a SINGULARITY, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.’
    As the phrase, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state, is mentioned in the definition of the Big Bang theory, it implies that something would have caused that universe to be once in an extremely hot and dense state. If nothing would have caused the universe to be extremely hot and dense state, how could the universe be in hot and dense condition? Or in other words, there must be something that would have caused the universe to be hot in order that Big Bang theory could be triggered off. This certainly contradicts Stephen Hawking’s theory that supports that something could be generated from nothing. This is by virtue of Big Bang theory requires heat and dense state instead of nothing in order to trigger off Big Bang theory and yet the phrase, something could be generated from nothing as suggested by Stephen Hawking, implies the absence of anything and this includes also heat and dense condition.
    The phrase, After its initial expansion from a singularity, as mentioned in the same paragraph in the website address above gives us the impression that Big Bang theory is the continuation theory of General Relativity.
    The following is the extract from the first paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Timeline of the Big Bang’:
    ‘Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using GENERAL RELATIVITY yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. THIS SINGULARITY IS SOMETIMES CALLED “THE BIG BANG”, but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe.’
    Both phrases, general relativity, and , singularity is sometimes called “the Big Bang”, as extracted above give us the idea that Big Bang theory is meant for general relativity.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What is General Relativity? The following is the definition of General Relativity as extracted from the second paragraph under the sub-title, Introduction to General Relativity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity:
    ‘General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Eistein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time.’
    The phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, as mentioned in this definition gives the implication that the general relativity has their derivation from three elements and there are masses, space and time. It is only at the existence of masses that has been coordinated with the warping of space and time that these would contribute the gravitational attraction.
    As mentioned early that Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity and yet the General Relativity is only at work among masses, space and time. As masses have to be needed to be in existence in order to have the creation of General Relativity and yet Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity, it gives the implication that the masses of substances have to be present in order to generate Big Bang theory. As the existence of masses of substances would then generate Big Bang theory, Stephen Hawking’s theory that Big Bang theory would create something out of nothing would be wrong. This is by virtue of it is the must to have masses of substances to interact with time and space so as to generate Big Bang theory.
    Now a question has to be raised. As it is a must to have masses of substances in order to generate Big Bang theory that would result from their warping of space of time and yet Big Bang theory requires nothing to generate something, all these point to the fact that the Big Bang theory itself is unscientific and contradictorily and cannot be reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Does the absence of cosmological constant from Einstein Field Equation supports this universe could be created to be something from nothing?
    The following is the extract under the sub-title, Einstein Field Equations, from the website address, http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cosmological_constant:
    (…where G is the gravitational constant. .. This "cosmological constant" was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, and it is given the symbol Λ .
    R μν -1/2 Rg μν + Λ μν =8πGT μν (2)
    When Λ is positive it acts as a repulsive force. )
    As the phrase, the ‘cosmological constant was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that Einstein presumed that the universe should be in static stage and that was why he inserted Λ μν into his equation.
    At the absence of cosmological constant, Λ μν, from the above equation, the universe would turn up not to be static universe and the equation should be:
    R μν -1/2 Rg μν =8πGT μν
    From the equation above, the space time as expressed by (R μν -1/2 Rg μν) has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant.
    What is gravitational constant? The mathematical formula of gravitational constant could be located in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation, under the sub-title, Newton’s law of universal gravitation as indicated below:
    {F = G (m1 m2)/(r) the power of 2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}
    From the above formula, it is obvious that F, the force between the masses, has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant. If the gravitational constant is zero, the force between the masses should be zero too. Or in other words, there should not be any gravity at the absence of masses. This certainly would not support Stephen Hawking’s theory that mentions that gravity could exist at the absence of masses so as to generate something out of nothing.
    As gravitational constant has to deal with masses and the Eistein Field Equation, i.e. R μν-1/2Rg μν=8πGT μν, has to deal with gravitational constant, it gives the ultimate conclusion that Eistein Field Equation has to deal with masses despite the absence of cosmological constant. Or in other words, in order that Eistein Field Equation to be at work, masses of substances must be in existence in order to generate General Relativity. Thus, it opposes the theory that supports that universe could be generated to something out of nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Stephen Hawking mentioned before that the universe would be formed through Quantum Theory.
    The following is the extract from the third paragraph under the sub-title, Vacuum State, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state:
    ‘According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.’
    As the phrase, vacuum is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned above, it implies quantum vacuum could never be empty. Instead, it consists of electromagnetic waves as well as particles. Questions have to be raised. What would have caused electromagnetic waves to exist? If nothing should have existed prior to the creation of quantum vacuum, why should there be electromagnetic waves? What should thing have existed to give rise to electromagnetic waves in order to generate quantum vacuum? The electromagnetic waves give the implication that something should have caused the waves to rise or else there should never be any electromagnetic waves to be generated. As there would be particles that pop into and out of existence at the function of quantum vacuum, it implies the existence of particles in which something must have created them into beings.
    Thus, the above explanation objects the explanation that quantum vacuum could create something out of nothing since the existence of electromagnetic waves would give the information that something should have created it or else why the waves should be in existence. Besides, the existence of particles that pop into and out of existence in the quantum vacuum gives the implication of the existence of matter in quantum vacuum condition. If one comments that quantum vacuum could create the universe, who then should be the one that would create electromagnetic waves so as to trigger off quantum vacuum then? Besides, who was the one that would have created particles that would have popped in and out of existence in quantum vacuum condition?
    From the above analysis, it would come to the conclusion that quantum vacuum is not the creator of the universe since how quantum vacuum could be able to create something out of nothing especially there are particles in quantum vacuum.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Some might argue that the word, mass, as mentioned in Newton’s principle or General Relativity might not refer to substances but energy since there is mass for energy. Discuss.
    The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Definition and basic properties, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity:
    ‘Paraphrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.’
    The word, matter, as extract above gives the implication that the word, mass as mentioned in General Relativity is meant for objects or substances instead of energy.
    The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph under the sub-title, Geometry of Newtonian gravity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity:
    ‘A simplified version of this is embodied in Einstein's elevator experiment, illustrated in the figure on the right: for an observer in a small enclosed room, it is impossible to decide, by mapping the trajectory of bodies such as a dropped ball, whether the room is at rest in a gravitational field, or in free space aboard an accelerating rocket generating a force equal to gravity.’
    The phrases, elevator experiment, and, dropped ball, and accelerating rocket, as mentioned above gives the implication that Einstein has performed the General Relativity on matter instead of on energy. Thus, the matter as mentioned in Einstein’s theory is meant inevitably for substances or objects instead of for energy. As Einstein has performed his General Relativity’s experiment successfully on matter, it is obvious that the word, mass, in his General Relativity’s theory is meant for substances or objects instead of for energy.
    The following is the extract from the third paragraph under the sub-title, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation in the website address, http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l3c.cfm:
    (But Newton's law of universal gravitation extends gravity beyond earth. Newton's law of universal gravitation is about the universality of gravity. Newton's place in the Gravity Hall of Fame is not due to his discovery of gravity, but rather due to his discovery that gravitation is universal. ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates their centers.)
    The phrase, ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction, as mentioned above gives the conclusion that Newton referred the word, mass, is his definition to be objects or substances instead of energy.
    The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Law of Universal Gravitation, from the website address, http://schools.wikia.com/wiki/Newton%27s_Law_of_Universal_Gravitation, gives an absolute truth that universal gravitation has its derivation from the discovery from an object, i.e. apple, instead of energy:
    (Many people know the story of Issac Newton sitting under an apple tree; when an apple fell on his head, he suddenly thought of the concept of gravity. It is actually much more complex than that; the situation brought about Newton's law of universal gravitation.)
    As the word, apple, is mentioned above, it implies that universal gravitation has its derivation from objects instead of energy. Thus, the word, mass, in his theory refers to objects or substances instead of for energy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Science could be used to prove the existence of God and to strongly oppose Big Bang Theory or whatever, i.e. quantum theory or etc., that supports that this universe would be created to something out of nothing.
    The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of mass, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass:
    (The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time…The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles;…)
    As the phrase, the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time, is mentioned above with the phrase, mass can neither be created or destroyed, it gives the implication that mass could never be increased or reduced. If mass, such as the mass of space in this universe or air or energy or etc., could never be increased or reduced, how the Big Bang theory could play a part to cause the universe to increase. If mass could never be increased or reduced, how the universe could be formed to be something out of nothing. This is by virtue of the same amount of masses of substances or energy should have existed prior to the formation of universe in order to generate the same amount of masses of planets; space in this universe; stars; and whatever that have existed in this current and sophisticated universe in accordance to the law of conservation of mass. Unless the principle of the law of conservation of mass states that the mass could never remain constant over time since it could be reduced or increased, it is then justifiable to use it to support the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory by means of the generation of additional masses of space and planets in this universe. As the law of conservation of mass states that mass will remain unchanged despite it might be transformed into another form, the mass that our universe has now must have the same amount as the mass that would have appeared prior to the formation of this universe especially mass could never be created or destroyed. Thus, the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory has found contradiction with the law of conservation of mass. How could this universe be created through Big Bang Theory when it supports that the mass of the space could be generated with bigger and bigger space and yet the conservation of mass supports that mass could never be created in the first place? If the conservation of mass and energy could change, all the scientific mathematical formula would be wrong since none of the formulas could be equal especially when we talk about the change of transformation of energy from one to another or the transformation of matter from one to another, i.e. Hydrogen and oxygen turn up to be water, and etc. As scientists have proven that the mass could never change over time, how could Big Bang Theory be true then? How could this universe be created to something out of nothing if the mass will remain constant over time? Or in other words, if the world prior to the formation of this universe would be nothing, there should not be anything created. The formation of this universe would only occur if the same mass would have appeared prior to the formation of the universe.
    Even if one might argue that the same amount of energy might have existed prior to the formation of this universe so as to generate matters, i.e. earth, moon and etc.,, in this modern universe, the existence of energy implies the universe would still be created from something and that is energy instead of from nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of energy, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy:
    (The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system…but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.)
    As the phrase, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, is mentioned above, it certainly opposes Big Bang Theory in which something could be created out of nothing since the mass of energy that would have existed before the creation of the universe must remain constant or equal in size even after its creation. Even if one presumes that energy should have existed prior to the creation of the universe, the energy as well as its mass prior to the creation of the universe must be the same as the current universe. As the mass and energy can never be created, how could the mass of the space in this universe be created for further expansion as supported by Big Bang Theory?
    As Big Bang Theory has turned up to be unrealistic, it might turn up to be irrational to compute the age of the earth or the universe since the creation itself is questionable. If that could be so, the computation of the age of fossils could have problem since they might have existed permanently in the past and might not have even the beginning.
    As the mass, i.e. the space, matter, energy and etc., as well as the energy could never be created nor destroyed, and yet this universe could be created in the very beginning, it implies that something should have existed with supernatural power so much so that nothing would be impossible for him to do and this includes the creation of matter and energy in which there should be no way for it to create. Religious people call it to be God.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Could Big Bang Theory exist in the very beginning to create something out of nothing?
    Indeed nobody has ever existed prior to the creation of this universe. Big Bang Theory is just a wild imagination from scientists that this universe could be created through it since nobody has eye-witness about its existence for the creation of this universe.
    As Big Bang Theory mentions that this universe was used to be very small and very dense in the beginning, the mass and/or energy and/or protons and/or other particles that are within this tiny universe to trigger off Big Bang Theory would have limited volume. As the mass from universe in the beginning that would work under the Big Bang theory would slowly release the mass from it, it would turn up to be big universe and not so dense. No matter how the mass or energy or particles(,i.e. protons and etc.), that would be released from this tiny universe under the Big Bang Theory, there would come to a point of time in which nothing would be left in it as a result of the entire releasing of mass to its surrounding. Thus, it would come to a time that the universe would no more keep on expanding since the universe that works on Big Bang Theory has released all its mass to its surrounding. Unless the thing or the small universe that would trigger off Big Bang Theory in the very beginning would create more mass of space by itself so as to replenish the mass that has been released from it, there would be no way for Big Bang Theory to create mass of space unceasingly to cause the unceasing expansion of universe especially the law of conservation of mass and energy in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass, states that the mass and energy could not be created. How could Big Bang Theory support that this universe would keep on expanding as if that the mass of space could keep on producing without ceasing?
    As mass could never be created by itself, the total mass of matter and/or energy and/or particles and/or protons in the thing or universe in the beginning (that would generate Big Bang Theory) would have the same mass as all the mass of all stars and planets among all the galaxies in this current and sophisticated universe since the mass could never be created as stated in the law of conservation of mass and energy. How could this little universe (that would have existed in the very beginning with the capability to trigger off Big Bang Theory) have the same amount of mass and these include all the stars and planets that are among all the galaxies in this modern world? When Big Bang theory mentions that the universe could be very dense, could the density of the rocks among all the planets and stars in this entire universe be lower than the very high density of the space or whatever in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory? As there are more than billions of planets and stars in this current universe and the density of rocks in each planet is higher than anything else especially the very high density of space in the universe that would create Big Bang Theory in the beginning, how could the density of the space in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory be greater than the rocks of all the planets and stars in this universe and yet the size of that universe would yet be very small then? If you would add up all the mass of planets and stars of different galaxies in this world, it would form a gigantic ball and the outlook would be many times bigger than our galaxy and it would not be a very tiny universe as mentioned in Big Bang Theory. To generate the same amount of mass of all the stars and planets for different galaxies in this modern universe, the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory in the beginning must have the same mass and it should be in gigantic size as many times as bigger than our galaxy especially the weight of a planet is many times as heavy as the very high density of space.

    ReplyDelete
  26. As the universe that would generate all the stars and planets for different galaxies in the beginning should be in gigantic size, how could Big Bang Theory supports that that universe would be small and very dense especially the law of conversation of energy and mass states that mass and energy could not be created?
    Is it true that the thing that would have existed in the very beginning for the generation of Big Bang Theory could be very dense in nature? This theory seems weird in the sense that how the small little thing or so-called, universe, could be very dense. If you take a balloon to blow air on it and try to suppress its expansion so as to make the air in it to be very dense, it would explode. Thus, if the thing or the so-called, very small universe, that would have generated Big Bang Theory would turn up to be very dense, that thing or universe would explode itself since it would be under hard pressure. If you take a box and blow air in it so as to make it dense, it would reach a stage that no air could enter into the box when the air in the box has been filled up. How could it be possible for the thing or the universe that would have existed in the very beginning to be very dense so as to generate Big Bang Theory since explosion would occur within a limited space? What would have caused the thing or the so-called, universe, to be very dense in the first place?
    It is irrational to assume that the thing that would exist in the very beginning would release all its masses continuously non-stop until eternity for the fact that mass and energy could never be created under the law of conservation of mass and energy. As mass and energy could not be created by itself, how could the Big Bang Theory produce mass of space continuously as the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could never be created by itself? As mass and energy could not be created by itself in the thing that would have existed since the beginning, it would cease to increase in its mass when all the elements that would be within the Big Bang Theory have run out till nothing is left inside. Yet in reality what scientists have mentioned about Big Bang Theory is the forever increasing of mass of space in this universe. The forever increasing in the space expanding gives the implication that the assumption that the thing that would have been initiated with Big Bang Theory has been proven to be wrong since how could mass or energy be created itself when the law of conservation of mass and energy mentions that mass and energy cannot be created in the first place?
    A simple conclusion has to be made here. How could the Big Bang Theory generate mass of space forever to allow its continuous expansion when the law of conservation of matter states that matter or energy could never be created? If the reply is that Big Bang Theory could generate more mass of space through the work of space and time, the result would turn up to be contradictory with the law of conservation of matter that states that matter and energy could never be created.
    Big Bang Theory supports the continuous expansion of space. Is there any mass in the space? Yes, there is. The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state, under the sub-title, Vacuum State:
    (According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. As the phrase, vacuum state…contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and PARTICLES that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that the space that is in vacuum state is never empty since it contains electromagnetic waves as well as particles that pop into and out of existence. Or in other words, the increase in space could cause the increase of electromagnetic waves as well as those particles that would pop into and out of existence in the space that is in vacuum state.
    Is there any mass for particles or electromagnetic wave?
    The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson, under the sub-title, Higgs boson:
    (The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. The Higgs boson is predicted to exist for theoretical reasons, and may have been detected by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. If confirmed, this detection would prove the existence of the hypothetical Higgs field—the simplest of several proposed mechanisms for the breaking of electroweak symmetry, and the means by which elementary particles acquire mass. The leading explanation is that a field exists that has non-zero strength everywhere—even in otherwise empty space—and that PARTICLES ACQUIRE MASS when interacting with this so-called Higgs field…)
    As the phrase, particles acquire mass when interacting with the so-called Higgs field, is mentioned in the extract above, it gives the implication that there is mass among particles.
    The title, Mass of an Electromagnetic Wave, in the website address, http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0041v2.pdf, has spelt out that there is mass for electromagnetic wave.
    As there are particles as well as electromagnetic wave in the space in vacuum state and yet it has been proven above that there is mass among particles as well as electromagnetic wave, it would come to the conclusion that the particles in space that are in vacuum state have mass. As the expansion of this universe implies the increase in space results in the multiplication of particles as well as the increase in electromagnetic wave, the entire mass of this universe would increase simultaneously. Thus, the expansion of universe would lead to the entire increase of mass.
    As the Big Bang Theory supports the expansion of this universe would lead to the entire increase of mass of space and yet the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could not be created, how could this theory be reliable since it supports forever increasing of mass of space as if that the mass could be created even though it could not?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Big Bang Theory supports that the expansion of the universe is in slow pace ever since the beginning. Discuss.
    The following is the extract from the 7th paragraph after the question, Is this universe expanding faster than the speed of light?, in the website address, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575:
    (If we use the definition of distance given above (and only if we use this definition and no other), then the Hubble constant tells us that for every megaparsec of distance between two galaxies, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometers per second….)
    As the phrase, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometer per second, is mentioned above, it implies that this universe would have been expanding in a fast speed at 71 kilometre per second instead of in slow pace. As Big Bang Theory suggests a continuous expansion of this universe ever since its creation and it maintains such a high speed constantly at 71 kilometers per SECOND, the mass of space that it would have been generated must be many times bigger than the thing or the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory. How could this be possible for the mass that would be generated would be many times more than its original mass when the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created? Big Bang Theory is itself unreliable and contradictory.
    The Big Bang Theory seems illogical especially its derivation would be from very tiny point. The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, The Big Bang, in the website address, http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html:
    (The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.)
    The phrase, The universe began…with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point, as mentioned above seems irrational and illogical since how this very tiny point could hold the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of space, planets, stars, comets and etc. of this modern universe especially the law of conservation of matter and energy states that mass cannot be created. Big Bang Theory is itself contradictory and unscientific.

    ReplyDelete
  29. a)What is the impact on mass-energy equivalence (E = MC^2) and energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete? Should the law of conservation of mass and energy be abandoned? Should we abandon the law of conservation of mass and energy to accept Big Bang Theory since there are contradictory?
    Indeed, all the things in this universe are in the operation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. The following is the possible scenario if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete:
    All chemistry and scientific formula could never be equal due to the possible and unexpected creation and/or destruction of mass and/or energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete. Let’s give you an illustration. As we know H2 + O = H2O (water). What if there would be a destruction of oxygen, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2. What if there would be a creation of nitrogen in the interval, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2 + O + N. The absence of the law of conservation of mass and energy would turn up to be that H2 + O could never be equal to H2O. As the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass cannot be created or destroyed, H2 + O would turn up to be equal to H2O. Let’s give you another illustration. E = MC^2 (mass –energy equivalence). If the law of conservation of mass and energy does not work on mass-energy equivalence, the equation could never be equal. What if there would be a destruction of energy, the equation would turn up to be E – E1 = MC^2. What if there was a creation of mass by 10000 times during the process, the equation would turn up to be E = 10000*MC^2. What if there was a destruction of mass by N, the equation would turn up to be E = (M-N)C^2. What if there was a destruction of energy by 80%, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2*20%. As mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2. If the law of conservation of energy and mass is not at work, the General Relativity’s formula could never be established as Ruv - (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv. What if the energy would be destroyed by 80%, the equation would turn up to be as Ruv - (1/2) guv R = [(8 Pi G/c4) Tuv.]*20%. Besides, as we know G = gravitational constant and gravitational constant has been established as {F = G (m1 m2)/(r) ^2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}. If substance could be destroyed completely in the interval, the equation would turn up to be F = G(m10)/(r)^2. What if there would be a sudden creation of m3 in the interval, F =G(m1m2m3)/[(r1)^2*(r2)^2*(r3)^2]. Note: r1 is the distance between m1 and m2; r2 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m1 and m3; and r3 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m2 and m3. All these would alter the result of gravitational constant and have direct influence upon the equation of General Relativity. What if there would be a creation or destruction of energy, T, the General Relativity would turn up to be as Ruv - (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv + or – T. Or in other words, the mathematical formula for mass-energy equivalence could never balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy has become obsolete. It is upon the law of conversation of energy and mass that the formula has turned up to be equal due to there would not be any creation or destruction of mass or energy.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mass-energy equivalence expresses that E = MC^2 and that implies that matter could be converted to energy. However, this equation does not imply that energy may be converted to matters. There is no evidence from scientists that energy can be converted to matter currently. As energy could not be converted to matter, how could Big Bang Theory support that the creation could start up with energy from a very hot condensed state in a very tiny point whereby the energy could be converted to mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this modern universe as if that mass could be created in which the law of conservation of mass states that it cannot?
    b)How could the density of the hot condense state in a very tiny point as suggested by Big Bang Theory be greater than the density of rock of any planets? If the density of the hot condense state could not be greater than the density of rock of any planets, how could the mass in this very tiny point be equal to the total mass of all the planets and etc. in this modern world? This is by virtue of the total mass that would be in the hot condense state must be equal to the total mass of all the planets, stars and etc. that are among all galaxies since the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created.
    c)Some might comment that the particles in the space might not carry much mass. As we know there is electromagnetic wave in the space and each wave carries much particles. As much space in vacuum state implies more particles for much electromagnetic wave, much space implies much mass and carries more weight.
    d)If you might know the experiment that has been carried out through Large Hadron Collider at CERN, you should have known that it serves no purpose to convince the world that universe in the very hot dense could produce a mass of a huge planet. This is by virtue of we have heard of the production of matter and antimatter through it and yet none of the experiments have come to our mind that it could produce a big planet through this machine and not even a small little sand. For instance, if LHC could be so efficient to create an environment that would meet the condition that is required by Big Bang Theory, the experiment should show a creation of a planet or a small little rock instead of a tiny particle. Some might consider the existence of 6 dimensions to be at work. Why is it that the possible existence of 6 dimensions could not cause LHC to generate a piece of rock instead of tiny small particles currently when this system has generated the environment that seems to meet the condition that Big Bang Theory should be? If LHC could not create a piece of rock but small particles, how could we be sure that the very tiny point that has been assumed by scientists in Big Bang Theory in the beginning could create the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this current universe?

    ReplyDelete
  31. As the formula of mass-energy equivalence would not balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete, the end-result would turn up to be that mass-energy equivalence would be questionable due to the formation of equation to esablish General Relativity could not be established. The end-result that the law of conservation of mass and energy would be obsolete would be E cannot be equal to MC^2 and Ruv - (1/2) guv R cannot be equal to (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv due to the possible creation and destruction of mass and energy. If mass-energy equivalence and General Relativity could not be established as a result of the law of conservation of energy and mass has turned up to be obsolete, the theory could not be used to Big Bang Theory. This reliability of this theory is still questionable.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Evolutionary theory has been found contradiction with the Bible.

    a) The Bible supports that God created plants earlier than moving creatures or things and yet Evolutionary theory supports the reverse since it supports that single cells (moving creatures or things) were created earlier than plants.

    The following are the extracted verses from the scripture:

    Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” After creating the plants, Genesis 1:21, “And GOD CREATED great whales, and EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT MOVETH, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.”

    As the phrase, God created …every living creature that moveth (or moving creature), is mentioned in Genesis 1:21 and yet it is mentioned after Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants, it implies that God should have created plants earlier than the moving creature, i.e. single cells.

    According to evolutionary theory, single cells were formed in the very beginning prior to their development into more complexity of creatures, i.e. plants. In the timelines of living things, single cells were placed to be in 3.6 billion years ago and yet the plants were created in 475 million years. Or in other words, evolutionary theory presumes that plants were created after the creation of single cells, i.e. living creature that moveth.

    b) God created plants that bore fruits prior to His creation of animals and yet evolutionary theory shows the reverse. The following is the explanation:

    Genesis 1:11, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." After that, Genesis 1:20, "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

    As the phrase, yielding fruit, is mentioned in Genesis 1:11, it gives the implication that God should have created trees that could grow flowers prior to their yielding of fruits. The phrase, the moving creature that hath life and fowl, as mentioned in Genesis 1:20 gives the implication of the creation of animals. As Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants with flowers is mentioned prior to Genesis 1:20, it implies that God should have created plants with flowers prior to the creation of animals.

    In the timelines, it shows the reverse. Animals were created in 590 million years ago and yet the plants that would grow flowers were created in 130 million years ago.

    The discrepancies between the Bible and the timelines table have placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Timelines that has been established by archaeologists causes Genesis 1:29-30 to be in vain.

    In timelines table that was created by archaeologists, animals were created in 590 million years ago and yet plants were created in 475 million years ago. Those plants that would grow fruits and flower were created in 130 million years ago. Or in other words, evolutionary theory supports that plants were not in existence during the creation of animals. The absence of plants would make Genesis 1:29-30 to be in vain since how God could demand all animals to eat fruits from plants when they were not in existence initially. Thus, evolutionary theory does contradict the teaching of the book of Genesis 1:29-30.

    Genesis 1:29-30, "Then God said, “...To all animals and all birds, everything that moves and breathes, I give whatever grows out of the ground for food.”

    As God demanded all animals to eat food from plants, He should have created plants prior to the creation of animals as spelt out in Genesis 1:11 as follows:

    Genesis 1:11, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

    Nevertheless, it is justifiable for God to place Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants prior to Genesis 1:29-30. They indeed perfectly match and were in sequential order without wrongly placed.

    How could Christians engross in evolutionary theory when it contradicts the fundamental teaching of the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.

    In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.

    The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:

    a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:

    Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.

    b)The creation of sun:

    According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:

    Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.

    As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.

    c)The creation of stars:

    Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”

    The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.

    As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.

    The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.

    How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?

    ReplyDelete
  35. There are a few possibilities that the serpent could have dialogue with Eve as mentioned in Genesis 3:

    a)This serpent could be an unique animal that was created by God to be able to speak the same language as Eve;

    OR

    b)All the animals that were created by God did speak the same language in the past.

    Which statement above is more suitable to describe animals in the past prior to the flood?

    Genesis 11:1, "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

    As the phrase, And the whole earth was of one language, is mentioned in Genesis 11:1, it implies that all the animals, i.e. dinosaurs, birds, lions, leopards, and etc., spoke the same language in the past. Unless Genesis 11:1 mentions that the whole earth was not in one language and one speech, it is then rational to assume that animals, such as, lions, tigers and etc., could communicate with human beings. This is by virtue of human beings spoke in one language and yet other creatures delivered their own speech that could not be understandable by human beings.

    As all animals in the past could speak the same language, it is rational for serpent to speak the language that Eve understood.

    As all animals prior to the flood could deliver the same speech as human beings, how could Old Age Creation treat the dialogue between the serpent and Adam to be spiritual allegory?

    Nevertheless, it is justifiable for the serpent to speak the same language as Eve since the whole earth communicated in one speech and one language.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Some Old Age Creationists interpret the word, day, to be a thousand years or more due to the following reasons:

    The word, day, in Hebrew is Yom and could be interpreted as more than a day in Strong Concordance:

    1)day, time, year a)day (as opposed to night); b)day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day’s journey c)days, lifetime (pl.) d)time, period (general) e)year f)temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow

    Some Old Age Creationists even mention that the words, evening, and, morning, do not refer to sunset and sunrise respectively since they mentioned that the sun was created on day four.

    Discuss.

    Genesis 1:5, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

    The phrase, the light, in Genesis 1:5 implies the brightness of the day and the phrase, the darkness, in this same verse implies total darkness. If sunlight was not created in Genesis 1:5, why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If evening and morning as mentioned in Genesis 1:5 should not refer to the darkness on earth and the light that shone on it, why should the phrase, the light Day, correspond to the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 and the phrase, the phrase, the darkness, in the same verse corresponds to the word, evening? The reason is simply that there should not be light and day if God did not create sunlight to govern the earth in Genesis 1:5.

    Could the word, a day, be viewed from God’s way as a thousand years or etc.? No, it should not be since there is no day and night to govern God and that is why He treats a thousand years to be a day. To God, there is no evening and morning or even day or night to govern His activity. As the phrase, the evening, and, the phrase, the morning, are mentioned in Genesis 1:5, He spoke from human perspective point of view since there are nights, evenings, sunrises and sunsets to govern entire human race in this world.

    Could the word, a day, be treated as a thousand years instead of restricting it to be a day? No, it should not be so since the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 is in singular tense. Unless the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 are in plural tense, we could treat them to be more than a day. This is by virtue of there are many evenings and many mornings in a thousand years.

    If the sunlight were created only on day four, why should the phrase, the light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? This is by virtue of the entire heaven and earth in this world would be in total darkness if the sun were not created in Genesis 1:5. Why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5 when the entire world was filled with darkness as a result of the sun was not created in this world?

    Should we assume that God should have created sunlight on the fourth day? No, it should not be so since Genesis 1:3, “(mentions that) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” If God should have created sunlight on day four, why should God mention the phrase, Let there be light, in Genesis 1:3? As we know all the light in this world is the reflection of the light from sunlight. Could we locate any substance that could give light by itself without depending upon sunlight in this world? If the light as mentioned in Genesis 1:3 should not refer to sunlight, what kind of light should it refer to that could stand alone to give light by itself without relying upon sunlight if the sun should have been created on day four then? Undoubtedly the light as indicated in Genesis 1:3 should be none other than sunlight.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Could we use Genesis 1:1 to support that God’s creation could be from a billion years and mention that the Bible is not inspired by God since it contradicts against Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that mention that His creation should be within six days? No, it should not be so since the phrase, the beginning, in Genesis 1:1 could be interpreted as the beginning of the first day. If that could be so, the creation of the heaven and the earth should fall within a day and there is no contradiction with the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  38. God created the light in Genesis 1:4. The following is the extract:

    Genesis 1:4, "And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness." (King James Version)


    God's accomplishment in His creation of light as spelt out in Genesis 1:16 as below:

    Genesis 1:16, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also."

    The word, made, in Genesis 1:16 does not give any sense of the travelling of light in reaching the surface of light. Instead, it implies God's completion in His creation of light in Genesis 1:16 especially the word, made, is in past tense.

    It is rational for Genesis 1:16 to mention with the phrase, God made, to be in past tense to refer to the light that He had created in Genesis 1:3.

    The additional light that was created in Genesis 1:16 was starlight since stars were created in Genesis 1:16 so as to reflect the light from sun as spelt out below:

    Genesis 1:16, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also." (King James Version)

    Nevertheless, two great lights were created and one is from sunlight and another is from starlight. Thus, it is rational for the scripture to mention that God made two great lights in Genesis 1:16 so as to refer to the stronger light that He had created in Genesis 1:3 and lesser light in Genesis 1:16. Remember! The word, made, in Genesis 1:16 is in past tense. It certainly refers to the work that God had done in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Evolutionary Theory is questionable!
    As we know, scientists support that human beings were evolved from apes. Provided with environmental conditions that were suitable for apes to be evolved to human beings, why is it that there are still many monkeys exist in this contemporary world? If all apes began to evolve at a certain time in the past to human beings due to the influence of the environmental factors, by logic, all apes should have been evolved to human beings. Why is it that monkeys (scientists called them apes) still exist in this world today?

    Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings, there should be many of them to be evolved to human beings at that time. If that would be so, the sin of Adam and Eve would not affect all human race if their forefathers could not trace back to them but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that the scripture mentions that all fall into sin by one man?

    ReplyDelete
  40. As we know oxygen is the main source for all living creatures to survive. Apart from it, all of them would perish.

    If all the work of the nature were the work of evolution instead of God, do you think the nature would have the sense that oxygen should have to be created first prior to the existence of all creatures? Certainly the nature could not even know how to think and could not even have the sense that oxygen must be formed prior to all living creatures! God must have to be in existence in the creation so as to enable it to be created first.

    That is the reason why God created plants first (Genesis 1:11-12) to perform photosynthesis in order to transform carbon dioxide into oxygen so as to replenish the earth with oxygen. God would not allow animals (Genesis 1:21) to be created first since all of them would perish especially they were those that only convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. Without the existence of plants in converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, the whole earth would have to be filled with carbon dioxide in the presence of animals. Ultimately all the animals would perish as a result of the absence of oxygen due to the absence of plants. Thus, the presence of plants (Genesis 1:11-12) had to come first and then followed by animals (Genesis 1:21). The arrangement of the order in Genesis 1 must be in sequential order and could not be disputable. This is by virtue of oxygen in this atmosphere could be diluted to the extent to the risk of the lives of all creatures if plants were created after the creation of animals. Bear in mind! All living creatures have to breathe in oxygen and to breathe out carbon dioxide. Ultimately carbon dioxide would fill the earth at the absence of plants.

    Now! Let us analyse the timeline that is laid out by archaeologists as below:
    ■for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
    ■for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
    ■for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
    ■for the last 1 billion years, multicellur life;
    ■for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
    ■for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
    ■for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
    ■for the last 475 million years, land plants;

    From the timeline table that is laid out by archaeologists, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively before the evolution of plants in 475 million years. How could these animals consume food that was grown up from plants when they were only created in 475 million years instead of before? How could God demand all creatures to eat food from plants (Genesis 1:30) when they were not in existence? Don't tell me that all these animals would be ended up to consume cyanobacteria that was brought into being in 3.4 billions since this living creature could perform photosynthesis! These animals might starve to death if they would eat only small little tiny cyanbacteria.

    Genesis 1:30, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

    ReplyDelete
  41. In order for simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively to survive, many plants should have to be created first in order to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. No doubt cyanobacteria could perform photosynthesis, this small creature might not be able to be fast enough to generate enough oxygen for all these living creatures to live since they, as biggest creatures, consumed oxygen faster than this tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, in generating it. Or in other words, how could simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians be able to survive as plants were created only in 475 million years and yet the tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, that was evolved in 3.4 billion years could not generate sufficient oxygen for these animals to survive? If plants were created only in 475 millions years, all simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians could not be able to survive since all these creatures would cause oxygen in the air to be diluted until such a stage that the atmosphere could be filled only with carbon dioxide.

    Do you find the timeline table that has been established by archaeologists to be illogical in reality?

    ReplyDelete
  42. When did God create plants that bore fruits? It was in Genesis 1:11-12. The following are the extracts:

    Genesis 1:11-12, "God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good." (New English Translation)

    The phrase, plants yielding seeds, in Genesis 1:11-12 implies the creaton of plants that bore flowers and ultimately developed into fruits.

    In the Timeline that is established by archaeologists, land plants were evolved in 475 million years and yet plants that bore flowers that had the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years. Or in other lands, the land plants that developed in 475 million years were plants that were unable to bear flowers so as to develop into fruits.

    The following is the Timeline that has been constructed by archaeologists:

    ■for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
    ■for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
    ■for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
    ■for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
    ■for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
    ■for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
    ■for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
    ■for the last 475 million years, land plants;
    ■for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
    ■for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
    ■for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
    ■for the last 200 million years, mammals;
    ■for the last 150 million years, birds;
    ■for the last 130 million years, flowers;

    In the above Timeline, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 million years and 500 million years respectively could not eat food that was grown up from plants due to their absence from the earth as they were evolved in 475 million years and that was a few hundred million years later. This has made Genesis 1:29-30 that God commanded all creatures to eat food that would be grown up from trees to be in vain.

    Genesis 1:29-30, "Then God said, “...to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so." (New English Translation)

    As plants that would grow flowers would have the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years, all the animals that were evolved prior to their development had to force to eat leaves, stems or roots. This would seem illogical at all for canivores.

    The worse scenario from the timeline that was developed by archaeologists is that all the birds have to eat leaves, stems or roots since birds was evolved in 150 million years before the evolution of trees that bore flowers in 130 million years. It is rational for birds to eat fruits from trees. How about leaves or stems or roots? This has placed the reliability of timeline into question.

    ReplyDelete
  43. a) As we know, scientists support that human beings were evolved from apes. Provided with environmental conditions that were suitable for apes to be evolved to human beings, why is it that there are still many monkeys exist in this contemporary world? If all apes began to evolve at a certain time in the past to human beings due to the influence of the environmental factors, by logic, all apes should have been evolved to human beings. Why is it that monkeys (scientists called them apes) still exist in this world today?

    b)Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings, there should be many of them to be evolved to human beings at that time. If that would be so, the sin of Adam and Eve would not affect all human race if their forefathers could not trace back to them but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that the scripture mention that all fall into sin by one man?

    c)If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them? Should Jesus Christ die for all creatures especially a single cell since all of them would have the same forefather, i.e. single cell?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Did God take more than a day to create the heavens?

    Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

    Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    By the word of the Lord were the heavens were (Psalms 33:6) he spake, and it was done (Psalm 33:9). Meditate the phrase, he spake and it was done. Super fast!

    ReplyDelete
  45. God finished all His creations and these should include the formation of stars (Genesis 1:16); the formation of land (Genesis 1:9) and the creation of all living creatures at the end of six days.

    The heaven (excluding stars since its creation is only metnioned in Genesis 1:16) was created in the beginning of the first day in Genesis 1:1. Whereas, the earth was created to be filled with water (Genesis 1:2), without land (Genesis 1:9), without plants (Genesis 1:11-12), and without any living creatures in the beginning of the first day (Genesis 1:1) and that was why Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was created initially without form and void.

    The verses that support that He created the heaven at the time He finished His speech::

    Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

    Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    Certainly the above verses should refer to Genesis 1:1. The heaven was created without stars and their formation was only in Genesis 1:16.

    Thus, God did not include the creation of stars when He metnioned the creation of Heaven in Psalms 33:6 and 33:9.

    ReplyDelete
  46. As the timeline table has been found contradictorily as mentioned above, the reliability of the various means of dating methods, i.e. carbon-14 dating method and etc., has to be placed into question. This is by virtue of the timeline arrangement does follow the dates of fossils in which they were examined and computed by means of various dating methods. If the various dating methods were accurate, the whole timeline table would not turn up to be contradictory against nature and also the scripture. How could Christians treat the datum that have been computed through various dating methods to be the truth of God and to use their findings to conclude to uphold that they are correct and the interpretation of scripture must be wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Theistic evolutionists support that they could be saved even thought they support evolutionary theory.

    However, they do not realize that they have sinned against God when they mention that the scripture supports evolutionary theory and yet, in reality, He did not and does not mean it.

    The scripture was God’s inspiration. God was the One that directed different writers to write the whole scripture at different times. As the scripture is God’s inspiration, It is irrational for us to treat God’s name to be in vain and to comment that the scripture mentions it when He did not and does not mean it in reality.

    Could we use God’s name to be in vain to comment that He did mention the entire universe and all the things in this earth were the work of evolution when He did not mention it nor mean it?

    Exodus 20:7, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    Deuteronmy 5:11, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

    ReplyDelete
  48. The following are the reasons to suggest God’s intention to let us realize the age of the universe and the earth:

    a) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1 number the days of His creation of stars, light, animals, plants and etc.? God would not number the days of His creation by day 1, day 2 and etc. if He did not want to draw us the attention of the dates of His creation.

    b) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis define a day to be governed by a morning and an evening as mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If a day should not be governed by a morning and an evening, why should the Book of Genesis repeat the same pattern in Genesis 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 and 1:31?

    c) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1:5 mention that light day is meant for morning and darkness is meant for night?

    d) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He would not inform us that the heaven and the earth would be created in six days. Why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that the universe and the earth were created in six days?

    Exodus 20:11 For six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

    e) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 that He created them in six days and then stressed it in also Exodus 31:17? Common sense! If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He should only mention in Exodus 20:11 instead of stressing it again in the following verse?

    ReplyDelete
  49. The following is the extract of the confession (XI) from Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD):
    Chapter 5. God Created the World Not from Any Certain Matter, But in His Own Word.
    7. But how did Thou make the heaven and the earth, and what was the instrument of Your so mighty work? FOR IT WAS NOT AS A HUMAN WORKER FASHIONING BODY FROM BODY, according to the fancy of his mind, in somewise able to assign a form which it perceives in itself by its inner eye. And whence should he be able to do this, had not Thou made that mind? And he assigns to it already existing, and as it were having a being, a form, as clay, or stone, or wood, or gold, or such like. And whence should these things be, had not Thou appointed them? Thou made for the workman his body—Thou the mind commanding the limbs—Thou the matter whereof he makes anything, — Thou the capacity whereby he may apprehend his art, and see within what he may do without—Thou the sense of his body, by which, as by an interpreter, he may from mind unto matter convey that which he does, and report to his mind what may have been done, that it within may consult the truth, presiding over itself, whether it be well done. All these things praise You, the Creator of all. But how do You make them? How, O God, did Thou make heaven and earth? Truly, neither in the heaven nor in the earth did Thou make heaven and earth; nor in the air, nor in the waters, since these also belong to the heaven and the earth; nor in the whole world did Thou make the whole world; because there was no place wherein it could be made before it was made, that it might be; nor did Thou hold anything in Your hand wherewith to make heaven and earth. For whence couldest Thou have what You had not made, whereof to make anything? For what is, save because You are? Therefore You spoke and they were made, and in Your Word You made these things.

    The phrase, For it was not as a human worker fashioning body from body, that is extracted from the Confession (XI) of Augustine of Hippo implies that he personally did not support the heaven and the earth were formed in the same way as a human worker in making an object by fashioning body from body. For instance, if he would support evolutionary theory, he would certainly mention that an object should be formed by moulding it and even shaping it from time to time to the extent of fashioning body from body.

    Did Augustine believe the existence of objects prior to God’s involvement in creation? Let’s meditate the extract of his confession as below:

    Truly, neither in the heaven nor in the earth did Thou make heaven and earth; nor in the air, nor in the waters, since these also belong to the heaven and the earth; nor in the whole world did Thou make the whole world; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PLACE wherein it could be made BEFORE IT WAS MADE, that it might be; nor did Thou hold anything in Your hand wherewith to make heaven and earth.

    When Augustine wrote the phrase, because there was no place wherein it could be made before it was made, he referred it to the time before the universe and the earth were made. Or in other words, there was no place for God’s creation prior to the creation of the universe and the earth.

    What did Augustine believe about the time that the universe and the earth were created?

    The following is the extract of the confession (XI) of Augustine:

    Therefore You spoke and they were made, and in Your Word You made these things.

    The phrase, You spoke and they were made, as extracted above implies that Augustine believed that God’s creation of the universe and the earth was immediate and He did not take more than a day for the creation. God created the universe and the earth speedily after His spoken words.

    Nevertheless, it is irrational to support that evolutionary theory could trace back as early as Augustine of Hippo (354-430AD).

    ReplyDelete
  50. Did Pope Pius XII support evolutionary theory?

    The following is the extract from Catholic Church and evolution, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    “In the 1950 encyclical humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.”

    Let’s analyze the above paragraph as below:

    The phrase, Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God, as mentioned above gives us the truth of God’s direct involvement in creation of individual soul. As the phrase, there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, is mentioned before the phrase, PROVIDED that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation of God, it gives us the conclusion that Paul Pius XII only supported evolutionary theory provided that it supports individual soul was a direct creation of God. However, evolutionary theory does not support individual soul was the direct creation of God. Instead, it supports that God only assisted in the evolution instead of He created individual soul by Himself directly. Indeed, evolution assumes material force, i.e. natural selection, that causes one animal to be transformed into another.

    As the phrase, provided that, has been stressed before the phrase, Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces (natural selection), it gives us a conclusion that Paul only encourages Christians to believe in evolution on the condition if it supports that God was a direct creator of individual soul, and that each of the creation was not the result of the product or the end-result of purely material force, such as, natural selection that drove the animals to be transformed.

    As evolutionary theory does not support a direct creation from God and that it supports that it was the end-result of purely material force, such as, natural selection that drove animals to transform, Paul Pius XII did not call Christians to support evolutionary theory.

    Paul Pius XII only called Christians to support evolutionary theory only if the teaching supports that it was God that created individual soul. Besides, they have to support that the existence of individual soul was not the product of material force but God’s direct creation.

    Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support evolutionary theory since this teaching does not support God’s direct creation. Besides, this teaching supports the end-result of evolution was the product of material force, such as, natural selection, that drives animals to transform.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Despite Pope Pius XII did not forbid evolutionary theory, he treated it to be the new erroneous philosophy.

    The following are the extracts from the speech of Pope Pius XII at St. Peter’s (Rome) on 12th August 1950:

    Pope Pius XII: “5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that EVOLUTION, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”
    6. SUCH fictitious tenets of EVOLUTION which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, HAVE PAVED THE WAY FOR THE NEW ERRONEOUS PHILOSOPHY which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

    Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, evolution…have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy, is mentioned above, it implies that he treated evolutionary doctrine to be misleading and erroneous. As evolution was treated by Pope Pius XII to be the new erroneous philosophy, he did not treat it to be the truth of God.

    Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “8. IN ALL THIS CONFUSION OF OPINION it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.”

    Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. The phrase, In all this confusion of opinion, as mentioned above should refer to his speech as mentioned earlier pertaining to his thought of evolution. The phrase, In all this confusion of opinion, as mentioned above, gives us the impression that he treated evolution to be full of confusion.

    Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE OR NEGLECT THESE MORE OR LESS ERRONEOUS OPINIONS. Rather they must come to understand THESE SAME THEORIES well, both because DISEASES ARE NOT PROPERLY TREATED unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in THESE FALSE THEORIES a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.”

    ReplyDelete
  52. Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. As the phrase, cannot afford to ignore…these…erroneous opinions, is mentioned above, it implies that he demanded Christians to be alert and beware of these erroneous opinions instead of ignoring them to let it has the influence upon the Church. The phrase, these false theories, gives the implication that he treated evolutionary theory to be a false theory and should not be treated as part of the truth of God.

    Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that CATHOLIC TEACHERS generally AVOID THESE ERRORS, it is apparent, however, that SOME TODAY, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and FEARING TO BE CONSIDERED IGNORANT OF RECENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, TRY TO WITHDRAW THEM FROM THE SACRED TEACHING AUTHORITY and are accordingly in danger of gradually DEPARTING FROM REVEALED TRUTH and of drawing others along with them into error.”

    Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. As the phrase, Catholic teachers…avoid these errors, is mentioned above, it implies that Catholic teachers should avoid these errors especially evolution had been treated by him as the new erroneous philosophy. As the phrase, some today…fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, is mentioned before the phrase, departing from…truth, it implies that he treated some people that involved in evolution (recent findings) to be those people that depart from the truth of God.

    Pope Pius XII followed his speech by: “36. For these reasons THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF CHURCH DOES NOT FORBID that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the CATHOLIC FATIH obliges us to HOLD that SOULS ARE IMMEDIATELY CREATED BY GOD. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

    As the phrase, the teaching authority of church does not forbid…the doctrine of evolution, is mentioned above, it implies that Paul Pius XII did not interfere the doctrine of evolution despite he treated it as new erroneous philosophy.

    As the phrase, souls are immediately created by God, is mentioned above, it implies that he supported that Catholic faith should be based on the concept that all souls are immediately created by God. This teaching certainly contradicts evolutionary theory that teaches that all souls could not be created immediately by God but it would take many years to evolve so as to come into being. Besides, evolutionary theory supports that God do not create directly all souls but have assisted in the process of evolution. This concept is certainly wrong since it implies that God do not involve in the creation of souls but to stand aside just to assist them to be formed. A question has to be raised. Did God create the souls personally or He just stood aside to assist their formation?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support that evolutionary theory is the truth of God despite he did not forbid its teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Did Pope Benedict XVI provide any view of his support of evolutionary theory?

    The following is the extract of the speech from Pope Benedict XVI when he had his dialogue with Fr Alberto at the church of St Justin Martyr on 24th July 2007:

    I think you have just given us a precise description of a life in which God does not figure. At first sight, it seems as if we do not need God or indeed, that without God we would be freer and the world would be grander. But after a certain time, we see in our young people what happens when God disappears. As Nietzsche said: "The great light has been extinguished, the sun has been put out". Life is then a chance event. It becomes a thing that I must seek to do the best I can with and use life as though it were a thing that serves my own immediate, tangible and achievable happiness. But the big problem is that were God not to exist and were he not also the Creator of my life, life would actually be a mere cog in evolution, nothing more; it would have no meaning in itself. Instead, I must seek to give meaning to this component of being. Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONCEIVE OF EVOLUTION, and THOSE WHO INSTEAD SUPPORT EVOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO EXCLUDE GOD. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT ANSWER EVERY QUERY, especially the great philosophical question: WHERE DOES EVERYTHING COME FROM? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance. This is what I wanted to say in my lecture at Regensburg: that reason should be more open, that it should indeed perceive these facts but also realize that THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN ALL OF REALITY. THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT. Our reason is broader and can also see that our reason is not basically something irrational, a product of irrationality, but that reason, creative reason, precedes everything and we are truly the reflection of creative reason. We were thought of and desired; thus, there is an idea that preceded me, a feeling that preceded me, that I must discover, that I must follow, because it will at last give meaning to my life. This seems to me to be the first point: to discover that my being is truly reasonable, it was thought of, it has meaning. And my important mission is to discover this meaning, to live it and thereby contribute a new element to the great cosmic harmony conceived of by the Creator. If this is true, then difficulties also become moments of growth, of the process and progress of my very being, which has meaning from conception until the very last moment of life. We can get to know this reality of meaning that precedes all of us, we can also rediscover the meaning of pain and suffering; there is of course one form of suffering that we must avoid and must distance from the world: all the pointless suffering caused by dictatorships and erroneous systems, by hatred and by violence. However, in suffering there is also a profound meaning, and only if we can give meaning to pain and suffering can our life mature. I would say, above all, that there can be no love without suffering, because love always implies renouncement of myself, letting myself go and accepting the other in his otherness; it implies a gift of myself and therefore, emerging from myself. All this is pain and suffering, but precisely in this suffering caused by the losing of myself for the sake of the other, for the loved one and hence, for God,....

    ReplyDelete
  55. Comments upon the speech of Pope Benedict XVI as listed above and observe carefully those words that are placed in capital letters:

    Despite Pope Benedict XVI did mention above that there are too many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality, he did not state clearly of his stand towards evolutionary theory since nothing is mentioned whether he had found favourably towards this theory.

    As the phrase, those who believe in the creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, is mentioned in his speech above, it implies that those people that uphold the truth that God should be the Creator of this world could not be able to identify whether there could be any link between the doctrine of evolution and Creator. This is by virtue of those people that support creationism would perceive that God was the One that directly created everything instead of being treated as everything would be the work of evolution and that He just stood aside just to assist without directly creating it.

    As the phrase, those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God, is mentioned above, it implies that those people that support evolutionary theory would turn up to exclude God in their process of formation of everything. This is certainly true in the sense that those people that support evolutionary theory would turn up to support that God has to be excluded to be direct creation of this world since their belief is based on the assumption that He only stood aside and to assist in the formation of the world without directly creating it. If God would turn up not to be directly creating everything, how could he then call Him to be the Creator as mentioned in his speech above? As Benedict XVI called God to be the Creator, He should have supported that God was the One that had created everything directly.

    Despite Pope Benedict XIV mentioned that there are many scientific proofs for evolution, he did not mention that all these evidences could be useful to prove the creation of this world. As the phrase, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, is mentioned in his speech above, it implies that he did not support evolutionary theory could be a useful source to answer every query that would bring towards it. As the phrase, where does everything come from?, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, it implies that the doctrine of evolution could not provide a suitable reason how everything would come about, such as, Was God the One that directly created this world? How would God create this world? As the phrase, they are not enough to explain all of reality they are insufficient, is mentioned in his speech above, it gives an absolute conclusion that the doctrine of evolution should not be treated as reliable and sufficient source to prove how everything would come about. As the phrase, they are insufficient, is mentioned in his speech above pertaining to the doctrine of evolution, it implies that Paul Benedict XIV did not intend Christians to treat evolutionary theory to be useful source to tackle answer as where everything comes about or how everything could be formed in the beginning.

    Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XIV did not mention that evolutionary theory could be useful to support how everything could be formed in the beginning, such as, How could human beings be formed? Was God directly created them? This is by virtue of evolutionary theory could not provide sufficient source to prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Did Pope John Paul II really support evolutionary theory when he delivered his message to the general audience on 29th January 1986 that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?

    The following is the extract from the third paragraph of his dialogue:

    The first account, later in time of composition, is more systematic and theological. It uses the term Elohim to designate God. IT DISTRIBUTES THE WORK OF CREATION OVER A SERIES OF SIX DAYS. Scholars have concluded that this text had its origin in the priestly and cultic circles, since THE SEVENTH DAY IS PRESENTED AS THE DAY ON WHICH GOD RESTS. It proposes to man the worker the example of God the Creator. The author of the first chapter of GENESIS wished to CONFIRM the teaching contained in the Decalogue by inculcating the obligation TO KEEP HOLY THE SEVENTH DAY.

    Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, it distributes the work of creation over a series of six days, it gives an undisputable truth that he supported that God’s creation fell within six days. Did he refer a day of the creation as mentioned in Genesis 1 to be a thousand years? No, he did not refer it to more than a day. As the phrase, seventh day is presented as the day on which God rests, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, to keep holy the seventh day, it implies that he referred a day to be literally a day instead of more than that. Unless he did not relate the Sabbath day in which the Jews have to keep holy to the seventh day as God rested, a day could represent a thousand years or more. This is by virtue of Sabbath day that the Jews have to observe falls exactly a day instead of more. As he relates Sabbath day to be the seventh day in which God rested, it implies that he did not support that a day in Genesis could be interpreted as a thousand years or more.

    The following is the extract from the 8th paragraph of the speech of Pope Paul II:
    ‘Together with all that Sacred Scripture says in different places about the work of creation and about God the Creator, this description enables us to set out certain elements in relief:
    1) GOD CREATED THE WORLD BY HIMSELF. The creative power is not transmissible—incommunicabilis.
    2) GOD FREELY CREATED THE WORLD, WITHOUT ANY EXTERIOR COMPULSION or compulsion or interior obligation. He could create or not create; he could create this world or another one.
    3) THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, therefore, IT IS NOT ETERNAL. It has a beginning in time.
    4) THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD is CONSTANTLY MAINTAINED IN EXISTENCE by the Creator. This "maintenance" is, in a certain sense, a continual creation (conservatio est continua creatio).’

    Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned in his speech above, he absolutely supported that this world was God’s creation undoubtedly. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned above, it gives also a significant truth that he did not support that God did not create the world directly but to stand aside to assist the evolution of the world. Instead, the creation of the world was the master piece of direct construction from God.

    As the phrase, the world was created in time, is mentioned in his speech above, he supported that the world was created in time or immediately. Or in other words, he did not support that this world would take many years to be formed.

    As the phrase, it is not eternal, is mentioned in his speech above in the same line with the phrase, the world was created in time, it implies that he did not support God’s creation was eternal and yet evolutionary theory supports eternal evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The phrase, the world created by God is constantly maintained in existence by the Creator, as mentioned in his speech above implies that God maintain the existence of His creation. It could be by means of protecting the world and to prevent it to be worse off or whatever as a result of natural disaster or whatever.

    Pope Paul II had mentioned the same in his following speech to emphasize that God was undoubtedly to be the One that directly created the world. He did not stand aside to assist the world to form but to involve personally so as to create it by Himself:

    ‘For almost two thousand years the Church has consistently professed and proclaimed the truth that THE CREATION OF THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. It has done this in continuity with the faith professed and proclaimed by Israel, the People of God of the old covenant. The Church explains and thoroughly examines this truth by making use of the philosophy of being, and she defends it from the distortions that arise from time to time in the history of human thought. In the First Vatican Council, in reply to the trends of the pantheistic and materialistic thought of the time, THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM HAS CONFIRMED with particular solemnity AND FORCE THE TRUTH THAT THE CREATION OF THE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. Those same tendencies are present also in our century in certain developments of the exact sciences and of the atheistic ideologies.’

    The same is also mentioned below that God was the One that created the world:
    ‘According to the "canons" added to this doctrinal text, the First Vatican Council confirmed the following truths:
    1) The one, true GOD IS CREATOR AND LORD"OF VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE THINGS" (DS 3021).
    2) It is contrary to faith to affirm that only matter exists (materialism) (DS 3022).
    3) It is contrary to faith to assert that God is essentially identified with the world (pantheism) (DS 3023).
    4) IT IS CONTRARY TO FAITH to maintain that creatures, even spiritual ones, are an emanation of the divine substance, or TO AFFIRM THAT THE DIVINE BEING BY its manifestation or EVOLUTION BECOMES EVERYTHING (DS 3024).
    5) ALSO CONTRARY TO FAITH is the idea THAT GOD IS the universal or INDEFINITE BEING which in BECOMING DETERMINATE constitutes universe divided into genera, species and individuals (DS 3024).
    6) It is likewise contrary to faith to deny that the world and all things contained in it, whether spiritual or material, in their entire substance have been created by God out of nothing (DS 3025).’
    Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, It is contrary to faith…to affirm that the divine being by…evolution becomes everything, is mentioned above, it implies that he opposed the faith that God (the divine being) would use evolution as a source to cause everything to be in existence.

    As the phrase, God is the universal or indefinite being, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, becoming determinate, it implies that God was not created from something else.

    Nevertheless, Pope Paul II did not support that God used evolution to be the source that caused everything into existence.

    If he did not support that evolution was the source that caused everything into existence, why should he mention that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?

    It could be that:

    When he mentioned that evolutionary theory was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis, it could mean that he supported that evolutionary theory and Genesis have the principle and that is to find out how this universe was formed; or to find out how animals were created; or to find out how plants were created; or etc. However, he did not support that the formation of everything was not the direct work of God but through evolution.

    Or

    He could have made a mistake in his statement.

    Or

    He spoke it ignorantly.

    ReplyDelete
  58. What did Pope Pius IX want Christians to do towards those fellow Christians that support all things were the divine work from God through evolution?
    The following is the extract from Catholics and Evolution, wiki:
    On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, during the papacy of Pope Pius IX, who defined dogmatically papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council in 1869–70…..
    ………………..
    ……………….
    ………………..
    On God the Creator, the Vatican Council was very clear. The definitions preceding the "anathema" (as a technical term of Catholic theology, let him be "cut off" or excommunicated, cf. Galatians 1:6–9; Titus 3:10–11; Matthew 18:15–17) signify an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Faith (De Fide):
    1. On God the creator of all things
    1. …..
    2. …..
    3. …..
    4. IF ANYONE SAYS THAT that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from THE DIVINE SUBSTANCE; or that the divine essence, BY the manifestation and EVOLUTION of itself BECOMES ALL THINGS or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
    5. …..

    Comment upon the speech from Pope Pius IX as listed above and observe carefully those letters that are in capital letters.

    As the phrase, If anyone says that…the divine substance (could be God)…by…evolution of itself becomes all things…let him be anathema, is mentioned in his speech above, it seems to be that he discouraged Christians to have faith in evolution. The phrase, finite things…spiritual…the divine substance, as mentioned in his speech, could refer to God in which Christians support the divine work of God in evolution. Thus, the phrase, the divine substance…by…evolution…becomes all things, could be interpreted as these Christians should have supported that God by evolution that becomes all things. What did he mention about these people? Let him be anathema. Excommunicate!

    ReplyDelete
  59. The website below shows the discovery of plenty of seashells on mountains top:

    http://www.google.com.sg/images?hl=en-SG&q=mountain+top+seashel...

    The discovery of seashells on mountains top provides the evidence of the existence of a Great Flood in the past. The absence of sea surrounding each mountain provides the truth that it is irrational to have seashells on mountains top especially they could only be available around the sea. It is also irrational to comment that seashells could climb up the mountains to reach its top. Apparently there should be a Great Flood occurred in the past with great sea waves that had caused that mountains top to bring forth plenty of seashells.

    If there were no great flood occurred in the past, why should there be plenty of seashells located on mountains top then?

    ReplyDelete
  60. The list of Darwin’s theory of evolution could be located in the website address, http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/.

    As mentioned in the above website, Darwin presumed that life had its commencement from non-life. Life as mentioned by him should refer to a living creature. As it is a lively creature, it has the natural tendency to make or to hunt or to search for food for survival. A non-life as mentioned by him should undoubtedly refer to an object that does not have the tendency or capability to make or to search or to hunt for food for itself for the survival. Could there be any possible reason why a non-life object could turn up to be a lively creature with the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food? By logic, a non-substance would turn up to be another non-life substance. It is impossible for a non-life object to turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food. There should be a justifiable reason why a non-life object would turn up to be a lively creature that would hunt or to search for food. What factor has contributed to a non-life substance to cause it to turn up to be a lively creature? How could a non-life substance turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to know what to react so as to respond to its surrounding environment for its survival? As, by logic, a non-life object could only be able to turn up to be another non-life object instead of a life creature that immediately could have the capability to adapt its environment and to acquire survival technique, this has placed the reliability of evolution into question.

    Some scientists might use a certain experiment to support that a non-life object could be transformed into a life creature. However, the life of the new creation could not be prolonged for a day or even longer. It perished immediately after its formation. It seemed to be that the new creation could not have the capability to adapt its environment since it did not have any survival technique or else its life should by all means prolong.

    The above has placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question

    ReplyDelete
  61. The following is the website in which it explains how single cells (unicellular organisms), could be transformed into a multicellular organism in the process of evolution.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

    In this website, it mentions that single cells should have secreted enzymes initially so as to pull all the cells together to cause the ultimate formation of multicellular organism.

    The explanation to link up single cells to the formation of multicellular organism seems to be logical at a glance. However, detailed examination would have caused many queries to be brought forth.

    a)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the sea in the beginning of its evolution be hardened so as to cause them to be bound up to the ultimate formation of multicellular organism, i.e. algae? By logic, it could only be possible for unicellar organisms to be bound up in the dry place when many of them would have come together at a fixed place. When they finished the food supplies, the place dried up and so they stuck together. It was not possible to the formation of multicellular orgainism in the sea especially scientists assumed many were formed in the sea. The reason is simply that sea water was wet and it was not possible for numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly as a result of the existence of surrounding sea water. As that could be so, how could multicellular organism, i.e. algae, be able to be formed in the sea? The existence of the surrounding sea water would not cause numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly especially the existence of sea wave.

    b)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the land be able to be pooled up together if they would be located in different area in the land? It was also impossible for multicellular organisms to be pooled up in the land especially the existence of friction of rocks and sands.

    c)In the wide sea, it is impossible for numerous unicellular organisms to come together despite of their secreting. Let’s give an example. An unicellular organism in the North Pole would not be able to be pooled up to another unicellular organism that would be located in the South Pole. How could numerous unicellular organisms be able to come together so as to form multicellular organism when they were located different regions in the wide sea? The existence of sea wave would hinder them to come together as a pool. Besides, the existence of sea wave would also cause the secreted enzymes to spread all around the sea. As the discharge of enzymes could be spread all around the sea easily as a result of sea wave, it would not be possible for them to come together so as to form multicellular organism.

    d)By logic, when unicellular organism combined to turn up to multicellular organism, the function of each unicellular organism within the multicellular organism would remain the same. This is by virtue of every unicellular organism would react the same way in habit or in routine movement after the formation of multicellular organism. There should not be any reason why there should be any discrepancy of their behaviour between unicellular organism and multicellular organism especially multicellular organism, i.e. algae, has been treated by scientists to have its origin from unicellular organism. For example, how could it be possible that the capacity of regeneration for unicellular organism was present and yet there was a reduction in the capability for regeneration for multicellular organism? The presence of discrepancy between nunicellular and unicellar has caused us to ponder whether multicellular organism in the beginning of the creation should have its derivation from unicellular organism.

    Refer to the website address below pertaining to all the discrepancies between unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms:

    http://bankofbiology.blogspot.sg/2012/03/comparison-between-unicell...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Refer to the website below pertaining to the belief of the possibility of the existence of multicellular organisms on Mars without any evidence of the presence of fossils:

    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8837-7_6#

    The existence of unicellular organisms on Mars is confirmed in the website address below:

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-07/news/1996220012_1_mars-...

    Read carefully the heading in the above website:
    SCIENTISTS DISCOVER EVIDENCE that life existed on Mars Single-cell organisms, not 'little green men,' says NASA director

    As the phrase, scientists discover evidence, is mentioned in the website above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of the existence of single-cell organisms.
    Some might argue the heading of the website address above might not support the existence of unicellular organisms due to the phrase, may have existed, is mentioned in the description after the heading. The following statement is extracted from the website above:

    ‘In a statement issued yesterday, as unofficial word of the discovery spread, NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin confirmed that scientists had "made a startling discovery that points to the possibility that a primitive form of microscopic life MAY HAVE EXISTED on Mars MORE THAN 3 BILLION YEARS AGO." ’

    The phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, as mentioned above implies the uncertainty that scientists have whether the discovery of unicellular organisms could be more than 3 billion years ago or less. They realize their existence. However, they do not know the exact date of their derivation and that is why the phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, is mentioned.

    The presence of hydrothermal vents on Mars could be located in the website below:

    http://www.space.com/5374-hydrothermal-vents-mars-supported-life.html

    Read carefully the heading in the above website:
    Hydrothermal Vents on Mars Could Have Supported Life

    As the phrase, Hydrothermal Vents, is mentioned above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of hydrothermal vents.

    Unicellular organisms could live in critical condition especially in the oil. The following is the website that supports it: http://www.mpg.de/791317/W005_Environment-Climate_078-083.pdf

    From the above extracts, it could confirm the existence of unicellular organisms and hydrothermal vents on Mars.

    Let’s assume that scientists would be true that the existence of hydrothermal vents would cause unicellular organisms to turn up to be multicellular organisms. Why is it that scientists still have not discovered any fossils of multicellular organisms on Mars despite the presence of hydrothermal vents currently? They did mention of their existence and yet their conclusion was based on assumption and belief without reliable evidence of fossils. It seems to be that the presence of hydrothermal vents does not provide a clear sign of the existence of fossils of multicellular organisms. Besides, if unicellular organisms would work as what evolutionary theory mentions that they would be united to form a multicellular organism, why is it that scientists still could not locate any bigger fossils of living creatures on Mars even though scientists have assumed that it was formed in 4.6 billion years ago about the same time as the earth as mentioned in the website below:

    http://www.space.com/16912-how-was-mars-made.html

    ReplyDelete
  63. Given the information by scientists that both earth and Mars would be created almost at the same time, why is it that gigantic creatures could be evolved on earth from time to time and yet not on the Mars? Despite the time would be long enough since the creation of Mars for multicellular organisms to be evolved into gigantic animals as the earth, yet none of the bigger fossils could be located on Mars. The absence of fossils for bigger living creatures on Mars has placed the reliability of evolution into question. The reason is simply that if evolutionary theory could work on earth, why is it that it does not work on Mars to produce gigantic living creatures?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Let’s put it in another scenario. There was no unicellular organism or multicellular organism on Mars. The assumption would turn up to be worse in the sense that evolutionary theory would not be workable in reality.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/life-mars-p... , indicating the environmental condition on Mars is suitable for life to begin:
    The rover’s lead scientist Prof Steve Squyres said: “Before detecting any clay minerals, ­Opportunity had mostly been discovering sulphuric acid or evidence of it.
    “Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink.
    "It was much more favourable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.”

    The same is supported in the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206179 , explaining the Mars is the place that is suitable for unicellular organism to be formed:

    ‘Temperature, humidity, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and radiation are the main factors conditioning life on the surface of Mars. When studying the Martian ecology, one must know the total effect of these factors. One may expect that, as a result of adaptation to low temperatures, there is a corresponding shift in the temperature optimum of enzymatic activity. Dryness is the main obstacle to active life. We suggest the presence of some soil moisture and water vapour. Moreover, there can be areas of permafrost. This minimum supply of water and periodic fluctuations of humidity may create conditions for the existence of drought-resistant organisms. Decreased atmospheric pressure alone does not affect micro-organisms, plants, protozoa and even insects. Ciliates reproduce in a flowing atmosphere of pure nitrogen containing 0.0002-0.0005% oxygen as an impurity. Protozoa may also develop in an atmosphere of 98-99% carbon dioxide mixed with 1% O2. Therefore, even traces of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere would be sufficient for aerobic unicellular organisms. Cells and organisms on earth have acquired various ways of protection from uv light, and therefore may increase their resistance further by adaptation or selection. The resistance of some organisms to ionizing radiation is high enough to enable them to endure hard ionizing radiation of the sun. Experiments with unicellular [correction of unicellar] organisms show that the effect of short wave uv radiation depends on the intensity of visible light, long-wave solar uv radiation, temperatures, cell repair processes, and the state of cell components, i.e. whether the cell was frozen, dried or hydrated.’

    The same is supported in other websites below:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312-mars-life-cu...
    http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-was-suitable-for-life-scientis...

    Despite the presence of environmental condition on Mars that would be suitable for the formation of unicellular and multicellular organisms and that the earth and Mars were formed about the same time, the non-existence of organisms on Mars would imply that evolutionary theory could only be permanently an assumption and could not be workable in reality. The reason is simply that nothing could be formed on Mars despite the presence of its environmental condition is suitable for organisms to be formed. If evolutionary theory is workable, why is it that none of the organisms could be evolved on Mars despite the environmental condition is the same as the earth that has the potentiality to develop organisms?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Scientists support that unicellular organisms would integrate with each other to turn up to be in multicellular organism in the presence of hydrothermal vents. The absence of multicellular organism on Mars despite the presence of unicellular organisms as well as hydrothermal vents, implies that it is impossible for unicellular organisms to be converted to multicellular organism. Hence, this proves the evolutionary theory is not workable in reality.

    Even if unicellular and multicellular organisms would be in existence on Mars, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has too placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question. Why is it that multicellular organisms on Mars could not evolve into gigantic living creatures if evolutionary theory is true?

    Nevertheless, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has placed evolutionary theory into question if unicellular organisms do exist on Mars.

    ReplyDelete
  66. There are three different views regarding the time in which the stars were formed.

    1)Scriptural order of creation.

    Let’s meditate the verses below:

    Genesis 1:6, “Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.” (New American Standard Bible)
    Genesis 1:11, “Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.”
    Genesis 1:16, “God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also.”

    As Genesis 1:11,, the creation of fruit-bearing plants or flowering plants, is mentioned after Genesis 1:6, the appearance of land, and before Genesis 1:16, the creation of stars, it implies that the scripture highlights fruit-bearing plants should have been created after the appearance of land and before the creation of stars (Genesis 1:16).

    2)Scientific view of creation.
    What did scientists suggest the date in which flowering plants began to evolve?

    It was shown in the chart from the website address, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-evolutionary-history-of-plants.... , that the flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago.

    What did scientists suggest the date of formation of stars?

    The following is the extract from the website address, http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question55.... , after the sub-title, Answer:

    ‘Results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only about 200 million years old. Observations by WMAP also revealed that the universe is currently about 13. 7 billion years old. So it was very early in the time after the Big Bang explosion that stars formed. ‘

    As scientists suggest that flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago, the above discovery that first stars were formed only about 200 million years ago would turn up to be that the flowering plants began to evolve after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years) and after the formation of stars (200 million years ago).

    3)Alternative scientific view of creation.

    Let’s compare with the extract below from first paragraph of the website address, http://fossils.valdosta.edu/era_precambrian.html :

    The sun and solar system formed about 4,600 million (or, 4.6 billion) years ago from a vast cloud of interstellar hydrogen and helium, enriched with a sprinkling of heavier elements. …..LONG BEFORE OUR SUN WAS BORN, generations of STARS LIVED AND DIED, paving the road for the existence of Earth and the other rocky planets.

    When was the sun formed?

    The following is the extract from the second paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ,

    ‘The Sun formed about 4.6 billion[b] years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud.’

    As the earth was formed in 4.5 billion years ago and the sun was formed in 4.6 billion ago and the stars lived and died long before our sun was born, it implies that this website, supports that the flowering plants began to evolve (135-65 million years) after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years ago) and before the formation of the stars since they were formed long before the sun was born.

    The great discrepancies about times in which the stars were formed have caused us to question how accurate the times that have been furnished by scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Second part of scientific view of creation as mentioned in the main topic above is wrongly computed regarding the birth of first stars. It should be 13.5 billion years ago (i.e. 13.7 billion years minus 200 million years.)

    Never mind! Let’s proceed further to see the variation of the dates of first stars:

    1) The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.zmescience.com/space/when-did-the-first-stars-form-750-m... :
    ‘First stars formed 750 million years after the Big Bang’

    The same is mentioned in the following websites:
    http://phys.org/news/2012-12-stars-universe-million-years.html
    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/when-the-first-stars-blinked-on-...

    2)The following is the extract from the last paragraph of the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-first-stars-in... :
    ‘According to the cosmological models, the first small systems capable of forming stars should have appeared between 100 million and 250 million years after the big bang.’

    The same is supported in the following websites:
    http://www.astro.yale.edu/larson/papers/SciAm04.pdf
    http://www.space.com/2628-star-heated-quickly-scientists.html

    3)The following is the extract from the website address, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_the_first_stars_formed :
    ‘According to the Big bang theory, the first stars (Population III stars, those with a very low metal content) were created around 400 million years after the initial expansion. [See related link]’

    The above shows the discrepancies of the dates in which First Stars formed. The great discrepancies about times in which First Stars formed have put us in doubt the accuracy of the times that have been furnished by scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:

    The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

    As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.

    As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?


    The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:

    4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula
    - 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System
    Sun was only 70% as bright as today.
    - 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.
    - 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments
    of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;
    Moon's orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]
    EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]
    - Earth's original hydrogen and helium atmosphere
    escapes Earth's gravity.
    - 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side
    of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]
    - 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.
    The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]
    EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]
    - Earth's atmosphere becomes mostly
    carbon dioxide, water vapor,
    methane, and ammonia.
    - Formation of carbonate minerals starts
    reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    - There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.

    My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.

    As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.

    Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.

    The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.


    ReplyDelete
  69. Was the earth formed through several destructions that were brought forth by volcanoes, meteorites and etc.? Does it differ from scriptural point of view?

    Scriptural verses about the creation of the earth:

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

    The phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, in Genesis 1:2, implies that the scripture supports that the earth was initially covered with water. As the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together…and let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies the appearance of land lately. Thus, the scripture supports that the land was not visible on the surface of the earth since it was covered with water.

    As the scripture mentions that the earth was covered with water, it is unlikely that volcanoes could be visible at that time since they should be under the sea water. As all the mountains were in the sea as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, how could the earth be under-attacked by volcanoes? As all the lands were in the sea water as mentioned in the scripture, how could the earth be under-attacked by meteorites? This is by virtue of meteorites would simply drop into the sea without any strong impact upon the land of the earth.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/ , in which contradiction has been found against the scripture:

    ‘This first eon in which the Earth existed is what is known as the Hadean period, named after the Greek word “Hades” (underworld) which refers to the condition of the planet at the time. During this time, the Earth’s surface was under a continuous bombardment by meteorites, and volcanism is believed to be severe due to the large heat flow and geothermal gradient. Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, accumulated in the atmosphere and cooled the molten exterior of the planet to form a solid crust and produced the oceans. This period ended roughly 3.8 years ago with the onset of the Archean age, by which time, the Earth had cooled significantly and primordial life began to evolve.’

    ReplyDelete
  70. Scientific evolution of the earth contradicts the scriptural view of God’s creation:

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.bobthealien.co.uk/earthform.htm, under the subtitle, Four billion years ago, seems to support the presence of the sun prior to the formation of the earth:

    ‘This is an artist's impression of what Earth looked like 4 BILLION YEARS AGO. The planet has no oxygen in its atmosphere and no ozone layer, so poisonous ULTRAVIOLET RAYS FROM THE SUN HIT THE SURFACE DIRECTLY….”

    The website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed ., under the heading, THE EARTH FORMS, seems to imply the simultaneous formation of the sun and the earth:
    ‘THE EARTH IS thought to have been FORMED about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that ALSO FORMED THE SUN. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth’

    My comment: Genesis 1:3-5, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (King James Version)

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”

    Genesis 1:3-5 should undoubtedly refer to the creation of sun since the phrase, God divided the light the darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:4. As Genesis 1:4, the creation of sun, is mentioned after Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, it implies that the sun only existed after the creation of the earth. Even if some would assume that the creation of sun should fall within day four, the creation of sun was still treated to be after the creation of the earth since Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, is mentioned before the day four.

    Some might argue that the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should not be in sequential order. However, there is no reason to assume that the scripture would support the sun could be created prior to the earth since the phrase, the earth was…darkness….upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 implies the absence of light on earth. As long as there was sunlight on earth, the entire darkness on earth should not be present. As the word, darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies the non-existence of sun or else the earth should be filled with some brightness. Thus, the scripture supports the sun was created after the earth and yet scientific evolution supports otherwise. Besides, the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should be in sequential order.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mcwdn.org/MAPS&GLOBES/Earth.html, to support the earth was a ball of white gases with extreme heat:

    ‘The earth was formed in the same way as the sun, planets, stars. At first the earth was a hot glowing ball of white hot gases with a temperature that was millions of degrees Fahrenheit. This was caused by particles of gases being drawn together and compressed, giving off a lot of heat. This happened millions of years ago.’

    My comment: Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon THE FACE OF WATERS.”

    Genesis 1:9, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”

    As the phrase, the face of waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially filled with water. As the earth was covered with water initially, it would be impossible for the earth to emit gases since all its lands were under water.

    ReplyDelete
  71. It is irrational to assume that active volcanoes might erupt in the water or the earth could be in molten stage. This is by virtue of any of these disasters would cause the earth to be shone with brightness especially the presence of larva. The word, darkness, as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of the earth in molten stage or the presence of eruption from volcanoes.

    The following is the extract from the ninth paragraph of the website, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/28/starsgalaxiesandplan... :

    ‘Early Earth was a very different place to the planet we inhabit today. Initially the planet didn't have a crust, mantle and core, and instead all the elements were evenly mixed. There were no oceans nor continents and no atmosphere. Meteorite collisions, radioactive decay and planetary compression made Earth become hotter and hotter. After a few hundred million years the temperature of Earth reached 2,000C - the melting point of iron - and Earth's core was formed.’

    My comment: As Genesis 1:2 supports that the whole earth was covered with water, it opposes scientific evolution of earth that supports the non-existence of ocean.

    As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was filled with darkness and water, it is impossible for the earth to become hotter due to the absence of sign that the earth was in molten stage or the sign of larva from the eruption of volcanoes. The presence of eruption of volcanoes or the earth in molten stage would cause some brightness on the earth.

    The following is the extract from the twenty second paragraph under the heading, How our earth was formed (Apr, 1923), from the website, http://blog.modernmechanix.com/how-our-earth-was-formed/ :

    It- is reasonably certain that the earth at first was very hot, hot enough to be molten all the way through. Its surface was a sea of melted rock in which great flaming tides hundreds of feet high raced twice daily around the globe. Gradually the rock grew cooler. It hardened. After awhile there was a solid surface crust. And slowly, after many millions of years, this crust grew cool enough for water to collect in hollows on it and to stay there. The first oceans were formed.

    My comment: As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was in darkness, it is irrational to support that the earth was in molten stage due to the absence of sign of brightness on earth.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:

    Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22.

    The following are the extracts:

    Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
    Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

    If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them?

    Was Eve formed from Adam?

    Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?

    Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:

    1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?

    Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Miller and Harold Urey did successfully create non-life organic compounds through experiments in year 1950s. The successful creation of non-life organic compounds does not provide the evidence that lively creatures could be evolved from non-life object. This is simply due to they failed to create lively organic compounds previously. Thus, it is not justifiable for any scientists to use them as an excuse that lively unicellular organisms could be evolved from non-life object.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/7.html , under the subtitle, VI. LIFE EVOLVES :

    'Such experiments have been repeated many times and it is clear that it is easy to make many complex organic compounds BUT NONE OF THESE SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS PRODUCED EVEN THE BASICS OF LIFE.So have scientists managed to produce life from non-life? Many have tried, but no experiment has succeeded. A scientist called Stanley Miller made an attempt at this and claimed that he had succeeded. However a closer look at his experiment shows that even he did not succeed (for more info on Stanley Miller’s experiment click here.This was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiments done in the 1950's.'

    The same is mentioned in the third paragraph from the website, http://www.findtheanswer.net/whataboutevolution/waechemicallife.php :

    'So have scientists managed to produce life from non-life? Many have tried, but no experiment has succeeded. A scientist called STANLEY MILLER MADE AN ATTEMPT at this and claimed that he had succeeded. However A CLOSER LOOK AT HIS EXPERIMENT shows that even HE DID NOT SUCCEED (for more info on Stanley Miller’s experiment click here.'

    ReplyDelete
  74. Is gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, justifiable from scriptural point of view? Was there any living creature during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2?

    The gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, that could be located in the website, http://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifers-flood.html , states that it supports another human races without souls that have no connection with any genetic mutation with the plants, animals and human living today could have existed during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2. At that time, Satan was a ruler of the earth and sin entered into the universe as a result of its rebellion that caused God to execute His judgment with pre-flood as mentioned in Genesis 1:2.

    Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of any light on this earth. As long as there was sunlight, the entire earth at that time should not be in darkness. As the earth was in darkness, the sun was not created at that time.

    As we know plants needed sunlight to perform photosynthesis. Without sunlight, carbon dioxide could not be able to divert to oxygen through photosynthesis. Without sunlight, all the oxygen on this earth would be diverted to carbon dioxide due to the respiration of all living creatures even if oxygen would have existed in Genesis 1:2. How could there be any animals, especially another human race, to be able to survive in Genesis 1:2 at the absence of sunlight since they needed oxygen to breathe in? How could animals be able to evolve from one to another at the absence of sunlight for a prolonged period, such as, million years, due to oxygen would entirely be consumed without a chance to be diverted to oxygen at the absence of sunlight? Thus, it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2. As it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2, how could it be that Genesis 1:2 was treated to be God’s judgment in bringing flood?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the scripture.

    The following are the extracts from the website, http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html :

    ‘About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.
    Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity, about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.
    A little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system was born.’

    My comment: The stars were formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang and yet our earth was formed a little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    As the phrase, darkness was upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that there was no light on earth. If stars were created at that time, starlight would still be visible at that time especially the sea water would reflect the starlight from the sky.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html, that states that stars do give off light:

    ‘Stars do give off light, that's why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.’

    As stars could give off light by themselves and yet the earth was filled with water initially as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, the sea water would reflect the starlight and would cause the earth no longer to be in darkness if stars would be assumed to be created prior to the formation of the earth. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2, implies the absence of light especially the starlight in the sea that reflects the light from stars in the sky. As the scripture mentions with the word, darkness, there is no reason to assume that stars could exist in Genesis 1:2 at the presence of the earth or else the sea water would not be in darkness instead, there should be many spots of starlight. Or in other words, the scripture places the stars’ creation to be in Genesis 1:16 after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:2, should be considered in sequential order since the stars should be created after the formation of the earth or else the earth would not be in darkness as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 since it would reflect the starlight. However, the Big Bang Theory supports the reverse and that is stars should be formed prior to the formation of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.


    What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?

    Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (King James Version)
    Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
    Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
    Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.

    Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.

    The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.

    Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.

    When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.

    Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.

    Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.

    Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    ReplyDelete
  77. The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.

    From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.

    Is God omnipotent?

    Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
    Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
    Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
    Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

    ReplyDelete
  78. It all boils down to the name you choose for the first cause. Religionists call it God. Scientists and agnostics call it Chance. Take your pick.

    JimB

    ReplyDelete