Posted on 04/25/2014 8:30:14 AM PDT by fishtank
Americans Question the Big Bang
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A new poll revealed that 51 percent of Americans question the Big Bang theory, and 54 percent of Americans believe that the universe is so complex that there must have been a designer.1 Mainstream scientists are not happy about it.
The Associated Press-GfK poll queried Americans' confidence in a number of other issues—the genetic code's link to inherited traits, smoking's link to lung cancer—and the respondents expressed more confidence in these issues than they did in the Big Bang. According to AP, "Those results depress and upset some of America's top scientists, including several Nobel Prize winners, who vouched for the science in the statements tested, calling them settled scientific facts."2
But the Big Bang theory asks us to believe the incredible—that randomized forms of matter and energy coming from an unknown source self-organized into stars, galaxies, planets, life and ultimately people.
...more at link
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
For those who prefer not to have a Divine Engineer tuning the dials, the alternatives are unpalatable. The most natural are multiverse theories, according to which all possible universes exist simultaneously and we simply find ourselves in the one that makes our existence possible. This is not out of the question, but there is no actual evidence for it. It is just an “atheism of the gaps,” calling imaginary entities from the vasty deep to plug a theoretical hole. The postulation probably involves gods, too—maybe not the omnipotent creator of the Abrahamic religions, but surely some unlikely combination of quantum fluctuations could produce Zeus and his colorful activities? Zeus is just a very big superman (physically, of course, not morally) up on Olympus and thus something that physics could manage to account for. The other possibility is to hope that there is some unknown mathematical reason why the constants are locked in as they are—again, a possibility, but one for which there is currently no other evidence.
- Amir D. Aczel
Lawrence Krauss wrote an entire book about it.
You've started with a supposition and worked backward. That's why you've appealed to the supposition using cherry picked quotes, even from a lifelong atheist.
It’s sad to see science is actually becoming some kind of quasi-theology in trying to explain how the universe came into being and the fine tuning for life… Krause postulates quantum foam (more snake oil) – but where did the foam come from and the quantum laws? These guys are attempting to use science to promote atheism. Truly sad to see…
It’s truly sad to see any intelligent person say that the universe is “fine tuned” for life, or that infinite regression somehow proves theism.
It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man. Imagine a universe in which one or another of the fundamental dimensionless constants of physics is altered by a few percent one way or the other. Man could never come into being in such a universe. That is the central point of the anthropic principle. According to this principle, a life-giving factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design of the world.
- John Wheeler
This is an insanely idiotic statement for anyone who understands the true scale of the cosmos.
Even our own solar system is not fine tuned for life.
Even our own solar system is not fine tuned for life.
From the article “The Exceptional Nature of Our Sun,”:
It is true that only about half a billionth of the sun’s energy output reaches our planet. Yet, even those few “crumbs” from the solar “table” are enough to nourish and sustain life on earth. Not only that, but if this tiny trickle that arrives could be harnessed efficiently, it could easily meet the energy needs of our modern society, with power to spare.
Most astronomy books say that our sun is an ordinary star, “a rather commonplace celestial object.” But is the sun in every respect a “commonplace celestial object”? Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer at the University of Washington in Seattle, has suggested that our sun is exceptional. Should this affect the search for life on other planets? Gonzalez answers: “There are fewer stars suitable for intelligent life than people realise.” He adds: “Unless astronomers narrow down their search to stars as exceptional as the Sun, they are wasting much of their time.”
What are some characteristics that make our sun suitable for nurturing life? As we examine these factors, we should keep in mind that many statements on the physics of the universe are theoretical in nature.
Some of the characteristics include:
1. The sun is a single star. “The case of the sun as a single star seems, then, to be rather unusual,” writes astronomer Kenneth J. H. Phillips in his book Guide to the Sun. That single status of the sun gives the earth a more stable orbit, which, in turn, makes for conditions that contribute to life on this globe, says Gonzalez.
2. The sun is also a massive star. Another related idiosyncrasy of the sun, according to Gonzalez, is that “it is among the most massive 10 percent of stars in its neighbourhood,” reports New Scientist magazine. Phillips notes: “The sun contains 99.87% of the mass of the solar system and as a result gravitationally controls all bodies in the solar system.” This characteristic allows for the earth to be relatively far from the sun—93 million miles [150 million km]—and still not pull away from it. This comparatively large distance, in turn, protects life on earth from being scorched by the sun.
3. The sun contains heavy elements. Gonzalez notes that the sun has 50 percent more heavy elements—carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, and iron—than other stars of its age and type. In this, our sun stands out among its peers. “The abundances of heavy elements in the sun are very low,” says Phillips, “but some stars . . . have even lower heavy-element abundances.” In fact, stars that have heavy-element abundances like that of the sun belong to the specific category called Population I stars.
How does this relate to the existence of life on earth? Well, the heavy elements are necessary to support life. But they are rare, making up less than 1 percent of the universe. Our earth, though, consists almost entirely of the heavier elements. Why? Because, astronomers say, the earth orbits such an unusual home star—our sun.
4. It has a less elliptic orbit. Another advantage arises from the sun’s being a Population I star. “Population I stars are generally performing nearly circular orbits round the centre of the galaxy,” says the book Guide to the Sun. The sun’s orbit is less elliptic than that of other stars of its age and type. Why would that affect the existence of life on earth? Because the circularity of the sun’s orbit prevents the sun from plunging into the inner galaxy, which is frequented by supernovas (exploding stars).
5. The sun has variation in brightness. Here lies another interesting fact about the star of our solar system. Compared with similar stars, the sun has significantly less variation in brightness. In other words, its luminosity is more stable and constant. Such a relatively stable output of light is critical for life on earth. “Our very presence on the planet,” says science historian Karl Hufbauer, “is evidence that the sun’s luminosity is one of the more stable environmental factors.”
6. The tilt of the sun’s orbit. The sun’s orbit is only slightly inclined to the galactic plane of the Milky Way. That means that the angle between the plane of the orbit of the sun and the plane of our galaxy is very small. How does this contribute to the welfare of life on earth? Far beyond the ends of our solar system, a vast spherical reservoir of comets, called the Oort cloud, surrounds us. Suppose that the inclination of the sun’s orbit to the galactic plane were greater. Then the sun would abruptly cross the plane of our galaxy, which could stir up the Oort cloud. What would the result be? The earth would be bombarded with a catastrophic rain of comets, say astronomers.
7. Solar eclipses: Of all the planets in the solar system (yes, I am counting Pluto) the Earth seems to be the only one that enjoys total eclipses. A solar eclipse occurs when the moon comes between the sun and the earth. To get a perfect overlap, the apparent sizes of the sun and the moon have to be roughly the same, so that the moon almost totally covers the sun. And this is exactly the case! Although the sun is 400 times bigger in diameter than the moon, it is also nearly 400 times farther away from the earth than is the moon. But the earth’s distance from the sun—and thus the apparent size of the sun—is more than simply a factor in the forming of a total eclipse. It is also a vital condition for the existence of life on earth.
“If we were a little nearer or farther from the Sun,” Gonzalez says, “the Earth would be too hot or too cold and so uninhabitable.” There is more. Earth’s unusually large moon helps life on this planet because its gravitational pull prevents the earth from wobbling around too much on its axis. Such wobbling would cause wild and catastrophic swings in climate. So to have life on earth, what is needed is an exact combination of the right distance between sun and earth as well as a moon of the right size—and this on top of all the other considerations regarding the nature of the sun.
Why don't you make some points of your own, instead of just cutting and pasting other peoples' thoughts. I have no desire to Fisk through someone else's work.
The universe is not fine tuned for life, nor is our own solar system. Most of the solar system is uninhabitable (as are large sections of our own planet), and there's no evidence for it any life outside of our own solar system.
It's as if you found a smooth rock in the desert and deduced that the entire desert existed at the pleasure of the rock.
I'm amazed that people are impressed that we happen to live in a universe where life is possible.
What is the alternative? To live in a universe where life isn't possible?
Nice try.
I fail to see any refutation to my observation that even our own Solar System is not fine tuned for life, much less the whole cosmos.
For all the Sun's "specialness", we're still one planet of 8; a very small speck next to a solar giant.
I think it's crazy to think the Sun exists for our benefit.
I thought this one was interesting.
So in 4 billion years when the Andromeda Galaxy collision throws our solar system into the interior, or flings it out into outer space, will the Solar System still be "fine tuned for life"?
I guess fine tuning is relative to time, especially considering that intelligent life, or life capable of knowing it lives in a larger galaxy, has existed for such a short period of the universe as to almost be non-existent.
Some fine tuning...
Read if you want…
There is one scientific conundrum that practically screams out the limitations of both science and religion. And that is the “fine tuning” problem. For the past 50 years or so, physicists have become more and more aware that various fundamental parameters of our universe appear to be fine-tuned to allow the emergence of life — not only life as we know it but life of any kind. For example, if the nuclear force were slightly stronger than it is, then all of the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than it is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.In another, even more striking example, if the cosmic “dark energy” discovered 15 years ago were a little denser than it actually is, our universe would have expanded so rapidly that matter could never have pulled itself together to form stars. And if the dark energy were a little smaller, the universe would have collapsed long before stars had time to form. Atoms are made in stars. Without stars there would be no atoms and no life.
So, the question is: Why? Why do these parameters lie in the narrow range that allows life? There are three possibilities: First, there might be some as-yet-unknown physics that requires these parameters to be what they are. But this explanation is highly questionable — why should the laws of physics care about the emergence of life? Second possibility: God created the universe, God wanted life (for whatever reasons), so God designed the universe so that it would allow life. Third possibility, and the one favored by many physicists today: Our universe is one of zillions of different universes with a huge range of parameters, including many different values for the strength of the nuclear force and the density of dark energy.
Some universes have stars and planets, some do not. Some harbor life, some do not. In this scenario, our universe is simply an accident. If our particular universe did not have the right parameters to allow the emergence of life, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. In a similar way, Earth happens to be at the right distance from the sun to have liquid water, a nice oxygen atmosphere and so on. We can ask why our planet has all these lovely properties, amenable to life. And the explanation is that there is nothing special or designed about Earth. Other planets exist. But if we lived on Mercury, where the temperature is 800 degrees, or on Neptune, where it is 328 degrees below zero, we could not exist. Unfortunately, it is almost certain that we cannot prove the existence of these other universes. We must accept their existence as a matter of faith.
- Alan Lightman
The big bang was the beginning of creation. I find it interesting watching scientists squirm with the realization that the whole universe was created from nothing.
It's a different statement to say that the universe is fine tuned for life.
Most of the universe, as far as we know, is dead and uninhabited, to the scale of 99.99....% to the infinite decimal point being empty, dead space and matter.
The whole argument about fine tuning becomes so subjective as to be incoherent.
It would be the equivalent of creating an entire ocean to achieve the desired one drop (our planet is actually much smaller than a drop in the ocean on a cosmic scale).
If the scale or structure of the cosmos infers a designer, then the designer is wasteful, destructive, and incompetent on a galactic scale.
We can see the heat death of the universe coming, and see the dead, desolate past of the early universe. A creator in this context seems to have much more of a fetish for nothingness and destruction, since that's what most of the universe is. Life doesn't even register on the chart as to be of any consequence on the cosmic scale.
Regarding the Earth, a house in a vast desert is still a house. Beyond this, the initial conditions and constants allow for life. Again, this is what science tries to explain away with the multiverse…
The "constants allow for life", which is a MUCH better explanation than saying the universe is "fine tuned for life".
Life is so rare that "accident" doesn't even begin to cover the sheer dearth of it in most of the universe (or even our own solar system).
That is the scale of the distance between the Sun and Proxima Centauri. Now multiply that by 300 billion stars with similar distances between them to represent the Milky Way. Now multiply that by 100 billion for the number of galaxies in the observable universe.
It seems silly and subjective to think that one tiny chemical reaction on a poppy seed next to the original golf ball is the reason for the entire structure.
“If the scale or structure of the cosmos infers a designer, then the designer is wasteful, destructive, and incompetent on a galactic scale.” I’m kind of surprised you would stumble so openly! Since you are arguing that we puny humans are not capable of understanding the system which has given rise to life, why would you flip your head over to assert that you have sufficient knowledge to exclude the origin of the information upon which the Universe runs? I mean, if you know that much perhaps you would like to share that vast horde of knowledge which is so secure as to preclude a designer of such a finely tuned Universe. Is it finely tuned for life? In a billion years, if humanity exists still, life will at least be all over the galaxy, sustained by utilization of the information inherent in the finely tuned Universe ... don’t you think?
Think Slartibartfast
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.