(1656) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 1/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:731b 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373671d9 So You Want Evidence!! For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries! Robert Jastrow, Ph.D., NASA Scientist, God and the Astronomers Genesis Outreach Mark Eastman, M.D. ----------------------------- The Origin of the Universe In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Genesis 1:1 The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be Carl Sagan, Evolutionist In the 20th century staggering scientific discoveries have led scientists to the startling conclusion that the universe began at a finite point in time and space, that it is not eternal and that it appears to have been designed. To the dismay of many scientific materialists (atheists), these discoveries strongly support the Biblical teachings that space, time and matter all had a beginning point and are not eternal physical properties. Robert Jastrow, Ph.D., NASA scientist, stated in his book God and the Astronomers: I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy-partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues. The essence of the strange developments is that the universe had, in some sense, a beginning-that it began at a certain moment in time! Let us look at the discoveries that have led scientists to this startling conclusion. The Eternal Universe For thousands of years men of science and philosophy believed that the universe had no beginning and will have no end. From the time of the Babylonians and the Greeks this was the predominant view of the universe. This view led many scientists and philosophers to speculate that since matter and space were eternal, there was no need for a creator. This attempt to explain away the need for a creator, or a first cause, for the universe has been an obsession for many scientists and philosophers, even to the present day. This notion of an eternal universe was a comfortable belief system for materialists because it made the necessity of a creator a moot point. Belief in God, they claimed, was not scientifically tenable. It was a matter of pure faith and unsupported by observable evidence. The hope of modern day materialists was well put by Carl Sagan when he stated: "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." This belief of an eternal universe was unquestioned by most cosmologists, even up to the revolutionary theories of Albert Einstein. This view of an eternal universe may be comforting to atheists, but this view has been severely disrupted by discoveries in this century. Belief in God does require a measure of faith, but such a belief is now founded on solid scientific evidence! Biblical Cosmology In the face of this eternal universe view are the writings from a number of Hebrews and Christians who proclaimed a very different view of the universe. This varied group of mostly uneducated fishermen, shepherds, tent makers and Kings, presented a view of the universe that was radically different from the dominant world view of a static, eternal universe. These writings, compiled in the Bible, claim to be from the mind of God. Yet they proclaim a notion of the universe that was completely at odds with the long standing universal notion of an eternal universe. As we shall see, the Bible proclaims a universe that began at a certain point in time, in a miraculous appearance of light, matter and energy. Further, the Bible claims that time and space had a beginning and therefore are not eternal. The Bible is the only Holy Book on earth that teaches this notion of time, space and matter having a beginning. All other religious Holy Books teach that the universe is eternal, having neither beginning nor end. The Bible also demonstrates, through predictive prophecy, that it's text is from a being that exists outside our dimensions of time and space. No other Holy Book can demonstrate such an origin. The writings of the Bible aren't polluted with cosmological myths and legends such as the earth sitting on the back of elephants. The Bible is the most maligned and attacked book of all time. (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1657) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 2/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:371b 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373636d1 (Continued from previous message) Liberal theologians, scientists and philosophers have attempted to chip away at the book because it dares to claim to be the only inspired Word of God. Yet the scientific discoveries of the 20th century have pointed to an astounding conclusion. The Bible, written over a period of 1500 years, by Kings, uneducated fishermen, shepherds, prophets and tent makers, is scientifically correct! All space, time and matter began at a certain point in time and was designed by an intelligent being. Lets look at the evidence. The Expanding Universe In 1887 two physicists, Michelson and Morley, made an observation about the speed of light that was the seed for a revolution in the way scientists viewed the universe. After making measurements of the speed of light, they determined that the measured speed of light was constant in all circumstances. The speed of light did not vary, even if the observer was rapidly moving away from or toward the source of the light! The speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second. Traveling at 5 miles per second in a space ship with headlights, an observer in front of you would measure the speed of light from your headlights to be 186,000 miles per second and not 186,005 miles per second! In 1905 Albert Einstein drew on this information when he shocked the scientific world with his new theory of special relativity. Einstein's theory expanded upon the observations made by Michelson and Morley and showed that measurements of mass, length, and time were relative to the observer's own velocity. Einstein also demonstrated that the flow of time is not equal in all situations. Basically, the theory of Special Relativity declares that measurements of length, mass, velocity and time are relative to the velocity of two or more observers. Therefore the theory is called the theory of relativity. An example will help us to understand. Twin brothers agree to test the theory of relativity. One twin stays on earth and the other twin agrees to fly in a space ship at close to the speed of light to a nearby star, 4 light years away. A light year is how far light travels in a year. The space traveling twin doesn't notice anything different as he travels at 99% of the speed of light. When he returns he has experienced about 8 years of time passage. When he lands, he tries to find his twin. To his dismay, the space traveler finds his twin is long since dead, having experienced decades of time passage. This incredible theory shocked the scientific community. It revealed that measurements of time, space and matter were relative to the observer! This notion was radically different from the safe, predictable Newtonian universe scientists had come to trust. In 1913 astronomer Vesto Slipher discovered that about a dozen galaxies in our vicinity were racing away from us at enormous speeds of up to two million miles per hour. This discovery was a surprise to the scientific community because prior to this discovery, astronomers believed that galaxies were fixed in space and only rotating in place. He reported his findings at the American Astronomical Society Meetings in 1914 and forever changed the way astronomers viewed the cosmos. In 1915 Albert Einstein published his second theory of relativity called Special Relativity. In this theory Einstein extended his theory of relativity to measurements of time, space, matter and length from an observer who is accelerating. Among the many outcomes of Einstein's new theory of General Relativity was that it predicted that all the matter in the universe was moving away from a point! That is, the Universe is expanding! Einstein, however, did not initially know his theory made this prediction. Astronomer Willem de Sitter found that Einstein had made a mathematical error, when corrected, revealed the mathematical prediction that the universe was expanding away from it's point of origin! This mathematical observation explained what Slipher had discovered with his telescope. The universe was apparently expanding! The startling discovery led to revolution in the way astronomers viewed the universe. Einstein's theory provided the seed for numerous discoveries that proved that the universe was not eternal. It was finite! The expansion of the universe was further verified by many years of observations by astronomer Edwin Hubble. Using the 200 inch telescope at Mt Palomar, he discovered that the further away the galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from their point of origin. After this new evidence was discovered, astronomers developed the belief that the universe must have begun at a single point in space, at a definite moment in time, in a sudden burst of light, heat and energy! This was a radical new model in cosmology, i.e., the study of the universe as a whole. This sudden explosive birth of the universe was dubbed the Big Bang. After the big bang model was conceived, scientists began to speculate about astronomical evidence that might support the big (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1658) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 3/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:cb1a 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373637e4 (Continued from previous message) bang model. Astronomers predicted that if the universe began in a sudden burst of light and energy, there would be a faint background radiation that would bathe the cosmos in all directions. This radiation went undetected for decades until 1964 when two scientists at Bell Laboratories, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, found a faint background noise in all directions in the universe. At first they thought that their instruments were faulty. The astrophysics com-community declared that they had found the background radiation which was the predicted remnant of the explosive origin of the universe. They won the Nobel Prize for their works. Another prediction of the big bang model was that the most abundant elements in the universe should be the very lightest elements of hydrogen and helium. This was initially felt to be verified, but newer measurements have shown that the amounts predicted by the big bang do not match what has been recently measured. As a result of these discoveries, the big bang seemed confirmed. The universe had a beginning, and that beginning was a sudden, explosive burst of light, matter and energy. There are, however, problems for the big bang, as we shall see. Before Time Began There Was no Time? Nearly seven decades after Einstein published his equations on general relativity, three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose discovered an amazing prediction hidden within the theories of Einstein. In 1968 and 1970 they published papers in which they extended Einstein's theory of general relativity to include time and space. They discovered that space and time are not infinite. According to their calculations time and space, had a beginning that corresponds to the origin of matter and energy! Scientists React to the Evidence The evidence of the expanding universe was not greeted with universal acceptance by the world's astronomers and cosmologists. Einstein reacted angrily at first, but finally conceded to his mathematical error and the evidence for the expanding universe. NASA scientist Robert Jastrow records that Einstein stated: This circumstance of an expanding universe irritates me... To admit such possibilities seems senseless Einstein realized that if the universe was expanding away from a central point then it had a beginning at that point. If the universe had a beginning point, then it must have had a beginner, he surmised! This discovery disturbed Einstein so much that he included, for a time, an imaginary mathematical constant to his formulas, to make the effect of the expanding universe go away!! He called this constant the cosmological constant. He later stated that this was the biggest error of his entire career. Einstein was not the only scientist to react angrily to the evidence of a finite, expanding universe. Jastrow records that many astronomers and cosmologists were dismayed by the evidence: Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that scientists behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence! Here Jastrow points out that materialists are curiously upset. Why? Because the evidence for a universe that has a beginning point is in conflict with the belief's of the materialists. That is, the belief that there is no necessity for a creator. So, scientific materialists, like the rest of us, respond emotionally when our world view is upset. And yet, these same materialists claim that they are the true scientists, dealing only in an objective matter with evidence they study. The evidence of an expanding, finite universe is the first of several evidences that cry out for the need of a creator. Time, Space, Matter and the Bible After these disquieting discoveries were made, astronomers began to speculate about where all the matter came from that exploded in the big bang. The book of Genesis states that the matter arose from a transcendent creator at a finite point in time. A creator who is outside the dimensions of time and space he created. However, for the materialist, the theory of evolution, which begins with the big bang, has no room for a creator. The theory of evolution was conceived by men who wanted to replace God with just the laws of nature, coupled with great time periods. Therefore, although the evidence from astronomy indicates the universe had a finite beginning, materialists refuse to accept the need for a creator. To get around the need for a creator, scientists have theorized that all the matter in the universe was either eternal or arose (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1659) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 4/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:bf1b 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373674ee (Continued from previous message) from nothing! Without a creator, these are their only options. The ball of matter that exploded is euphemistically called The cosmic egg. Without a creator the scientific community is in the quandary of trying to explain how the cosmic egg arose from nothing! We will examine evidence from the fields of astrophysics and thermodynamics that specifically rejects the notion that matter is eternal. And we shall see that if you have a cosmic egg, there must be a cosmic chicken too! Finally we shall see that if matter could arise from nothing, it would be defined as a miracle, a supernatural event, something which materialists deny. This notion that space and time had a beginning point, is an idea that our three dimensional, finite minds have a hard time grasping. We ask ourselves the obvious questions: What happened before creation and what is just outside the matter that expanded to form the universe? Yet, Einstein's theory of relativity, and it's prediction of a finite universe, has been verified to be true to five decimal places. This makes it a virtual certainty. And yet, it is the theories of Einstein that predict that the universe (Time, space and matter) had a beginning. The fact is, that time and space did not exist before the moment of creation! The Bible has had this fact clearly taught in its text for 3500 years! Written over 1500 years, by over 40 authors, the Bible dared to claim that time, space and matter were created at a finite moment in time. At that time, the most learned men in the known world, stated that the unix-verse was eternal, and other cultures taught that the earth rested on the backs of four elephants! For centuries the Biblical teaching of a finite universe was ridiculed by the establishment in science. Then came Slipher, de Sitter, Einstein and Hubble. They aren't laughing any more! In the book of Genesis(Beginnings) we are told: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Genesis 1:1 The Hebrew word for create, Bara, literally means to create matter from nothing. The word beginning, literally means "at the beginning of time." So the literal meaning of Genesis 1:1 reads: "At the beginning of time, God created from nothing the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)." The notion of time having a beginning is seen also in the New Testament. In 2 Timothy 1:9 we read: Having saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. As we have seen, this radical Biblical teaching of time and space having a beginning was not discovered by the cream of the crop of modern thinkers, in our era of enlightenment, for nearly 2000 years. Again Robert Jastrow: Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy! The Anthropic Cosmological Principle In their recent book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, materialists John Barrow and Frank Tipler point out that there are many characteristics of the universe, solar system, and the earth that have the distinct appearance of having been designed to support the life on earth. Although their conclusion is rather bizarre, the evidence for design they present is impressive. They claim that the choices man makes now determined in the past the design of the universe in the beginning so that it would be fit for man!!!??? There are dozens of these design characteristics, several of which we will review here. Each of these "design features" are in existence within a very narrow range within which life can be supported. If any one of these characteristics were to vary only a few percent, life anywhere in the universe would be impossible. This is evident in the following quote: " the relative strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces were to be slightly different, then carbon atoms could not exist in nature, and human physicists would not have evolved. Likewise, many of the global properties of the Universe ...must be found to lie within a very narrow range if cosmic conditions are to allow carbon based life to arise." We will examine several of these features of the universe that reveal a structure and balance of a finely tuned organized machine. (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1660) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 5/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:431a 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373679ee (Continued from previous message) l. THE FORCE OF GRAVITY: The force of gravity is that unknown force that causes one mass to be attracted to another mass. What causes this to happen is not known. But what is known, is that if the force of gravity was 1% higher than it is presently our Sun would be much bigger than it presently is and life on earth would cook! If the force were 1% less then the Sun would be too small to support life and we would freeze! 2. THE NUCLEAR FORCE: This is the force that keeps the protons in the nucleus of each atom together. Protons are positively charged particles that are densely packed in the center (called the nucleus) of each atom. They are packed in the nucleus with neutral particles called neutrons. Anyone who has played with two magnets knows that the two positively charged ends repel each other when held together and that this repulsion gets stronger as the magnets get closer. Well, the same thing happens in the nucleus of the atom. Physicists propose that there is a force that holds these protons in place and this force is able to overcome the repulsive force. This is called the nuclear force. If there were a very slight increase in the strength of this nuclear force then the number of protons that would be attracted to the nucleus would greatly increase and the universe would consist of mainly heavy metals. The chemicals of life, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, would be almost non-existent. Consequently, life would exist nowhere in the universe. A very slight decrease in the nuclear force and the only element in the universe would be hydrogen, which contains only one proton. The result: No life! 3. ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLING CONSTANT: This force is the same as the magnetic force that causes like charges to repel and opposite charges to attract. This force also causes negatively charged electrons to be attracted to the positively charged nucleus. If this constant were slightly stronger, then it would prevent atoms from sharing electrons and the result would be that no molecules and consequently no life could exist. If this constant were slightly smaller, then electrons would too easily leave the nucleus and again, no life! 4. EXPANSION RATE OF THE UNIVERSE: As mentioned before, the universe is expanding away from a point of origin. The speed of this expansion is approximately 2,000,000 miles per hour. Physicists have determined that if this rate were a few percent slower, then all the matter in the universe would collapse into a ball. If the rate of expansion were slightly faster, then galaxies and stars could not form. Either way: no life! 5. MASS OF THE UNIVERSE: The matter in the entire universe is also fixed within a very narrow range. According to astrophysicists, a few percent increase in the amount of matter in the universe would have resulted in stars which were too big and then too hot. A few percent decrease in the total mass of the universe would have resulted in no heavy elements and stars too small to support life. The main element in the universe would be hydrogen. The final result: No life in the universe. 6. DISTANCE BETWEEN STARS: Astrophysicists have discovered that the distance between stars is critical to life. If the distance between the stars was just a few percent closer, then this would destabilize the planetary orbits around the Sun and the earth would not be capable of supporting life. If the distance between stars was too far, then planets would not have been able to form. Again, no life. 7. GRAVITY ON EARTH: The earth's gravity is critical to the balance of the atmosphere. A slight increase in the strength of the earth's gravitational strength and the atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane which are toxic to life. A slight decrease in the strength of the earth's gravity and the earth's atmosphere would lose too much water. In either case life could not exist. 8. EARTH'S DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: The water cycle on our earth is of course critical to the maintenance of life on earth. The distance of the earth from the Sun plays a critical role in the balance of the water cycle. If the earth was a few percent farther from the Sun, then the earth would be too cool for a stable water cycle and the entire planet would freeze over. If the earth was a few percent closer to the Sun, the waters of the earth would boil. In either case: No life. 9. THE EARTH'S ROTATION TIME: The time the earth takes to rotate on its axis is critical to the weather balance. If the time the earth takes to rotate one time (now 24 hours) were increased by a few percent, then temperature differences would be too great to support life. If the rotation time were a little slower, then the atmospheric wind velocities would be too great and life would be wiped out. 10. SIZE OF THE MOON: The gravitational effect that the moon has on our earth's weather and tides is critical. If the moon were slightly bigger, then it's gravitational effect on the earth would be greatly (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1661) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 6/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:071a 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373635fe (Continued from previous message) increased. This would result in massive tides and ferocious winds that would wipe out the life on earth. If the moon were slightly smaller, then the tides and winds would be too small and the earth would overheat. Again life could not exist. 11. EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD. The magnetic field is important in protecting the earth's surface from harmful radiation from the Sun. If the magnetic field was slightly less, then we would have inadequate protection from the Sun's radiation and all life would die. If the magnetic field were slightly stronger, then there would be constant severe magnetic storms and life could not exist as well. 12. AXIAL TILT OF THE EARTH: The axial tilt of the earth is important in the temperature balance of the earth's surface. The earth is tilted 23.5 degrees on it's axis. If this tilt were slightly greater or lesser than present then the surface temperature differences would be too great to support life. 13. OZONE IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE: The amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere greatly affects the surface temperature as well as the amount of radiation that reaches the surface of the earth. If the amount of ozone in the atmosphere was slightly increased then the surface temperature would be too low. This is because less heat from the Sun would get through the ozone layer. If the ozone layer is depleted by a few percent, then the amount of heat and ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface greatly increases. This would cause the planet to overheat and the excess radiation would cause death due to cancer. The excess heat and radiation would have also prevented spontaneous generation, i.e. the origin of life from non-life by chance. As we can see, these characteristics of the universe are within tight ranges in order for the universe and even life to exist. These represent only a few of the many "design characteristics" discovered in the last 25 years. The probability of these characteristics just happening by chance is astronomical. These striking "coincidences" have led many scientists to believe that the universe was designed for the specific purpose of supporting life on earth! Together they show the incredible design and handiwork of the creator. The Laws of Thermodynamics The laws of thermodynamics have been fully described in this century. They provide some of the strongest evidence for the universe having a definite beginning and being the product of a supernatural intelligent designer. For our purposes we will discuss the first and second law only. The First Law of Thermodynamics The first law of thermodynamics simply states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter can only be converted from one state of matter to another, i.e. liquid to gas, liquid to solid, solid to gas. This law is often referred to as the law of conservation of mass and energy. This law claims that there is no new matter showing up anywhere in the universe, nor is there any matter being annihilated. All matter and energy in the universe is conserved. It can be transformed into different states but never destroyed. This experimental fact has never been observed to fail. The Second Law of Thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics states that as time progresses, matter always changes from states of order into states of greater disorder. It also states that the available energy for work in the universe is gradually decreasing with time. This increase in disorder and decrease in usable energy is called the development of "Entropy." The second law has also been applied to the area of information theory. In this context the second law states that the amount of information in a system never increases by chance as time progresses. Therefore, the orderliness of the universe is steadily decreasing and it is cooling off. A couple of illustrations will help to fully understand this law. If you take a new deck of cards, in the highly ordered arrangement we call bridge order, and you begin to shuffle them, you will notice that the arrangement of the cards will quickly become random and disordered. Common sense tells us that it would never go the other way. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics is so certain, that if you did ever observe a random deck of cards go into bridge order, with shuffling, you could be certain that you were experiencing a time reversal!! As time goes foreword, randomness always increases. The only exception is when you apply energy and intelligent design to raw materials, you can make the materials become ordered. But intelligent design (telos or purposefulness) is never the result of chance. Consider the example of a wound up alarm clock. If you wind up a clock to the point where the spring is fully wound, you have introduced outside energy into the clock to tighten the spring. As soon as you let go, the energy stored in the wound up spring (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1662) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 7/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:fb1b 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373679e5 (Continued from previous message) begins to decrease as it moves the various parts of the clock. Eventually the clock stops when there is no more available energy stored in the spring. This winding down of the clock's spring can and will only go in one direction: Downhill. Everyone knows that a clock spring will never wind itself up, no matter how long you wait. This is another example of the 2nd law's claim that the available energy in a system always decreases. The universe is like a giant clock spring that was wound up at the beginning of creation. At the very point of creation the total available energy and orderliness in the universe was at it's highest point ever. As galaxies and stars burn out, the available energy for work in the universe is gradually decreasing. Likewise, the amount of order in the universe is constantly decreasing. According to Einstein's equation, E=mc2, matter and energy are the same. Matter can at times behave like a particle (matter) and at other times behave like a wave (energy). Consequently, as stars and galaxies burn out, their mass is converted into energy. With the advance of time, this radiant energy cools to the point that all the matter and energy in the universe stops vibrating and dies a heat death. Again, Robert Jastrow, Ph.D.: "The second law of thermodynamics, applied to the cosmos, indicates the universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up...if our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe." Here Jastrow points out a critical piece of evidence for a finite universe. The universe, as a whole, is what physicists call a closed system. This means that no energy, order or information can be introduced into the universe from the outside. Consequently, a universe that is currently "running down" must have, at one time, been fully wound up. The second law dictates that matter cannot wind itself up. Consequently a source for the "winding up" must be found. It is simply not possible for matter to energize and order itself on its own accord, and all knowledgeable scientists know this. Another illustration of the second law is seen in the decay of the human body. From the moment of birth the human body begins the process of decay and death. This is noticeable in the accumulation of wrinkles, graying of hair, failing of organs, the development of abnormally functioning cells, the hardening of arteries, the failing memory and finally death. The highly ordered "perfect" baby gradually becomes a decayed wrinkled corpse! This is an increase in disorder, just as the second law predicts will happen with time. Evolution and the First Law The theory of cosmic evolution has as its very first step an event which defies the first law of thermodynamics. The first law declares that matter (or its energy equivalent) can neither be created nor destroyed. In order to explain the existence of matter in our universe, many evolutionary cosmologists state that all the matter in the universe just came into existence from nothing. They claim that it just happened: for no reason, without a creator, from nothing, from nowhere. All the matter in the universe just appeared. Well, if this could happen, it would be a definite breach of the 1st law. The first law states the you and I cannot create nor destroy matter. It follows, therefore, that if something which exists (you and me) cannot create matter, then something which doesn't exist cannot create it either. Matter cannot create itself, and in the real world, cannot arise from nothing. In the real universe in which we live, all effects must have a cause. If matter could arise by itself from nothing, then in that case, it would be defined as an event outside the usual experience or natural law. That is, a supernatural event. That is a miracle! So at the beginning point of the evolutionary scenario, creationists and evolutionists are in agreement! Matter arose from nothing! However, creationists willingly admit that the initial appearance of matter from nothing was a miracle, performed by a cause outside the universe itself. The atheist is confronted with the impossibility of explaining the arrival of the cosmic egg from nothingness. Now the evolutionist immediately protests "If God made the universe, who made God?" Well, they have a point. However, at the beginning of the materialists scenario there is an equally difficult question: "Who made that ball of matter that exploded?" So at the beginning of each model of origins we have unanswerable questions. Atheists may then would argue that they are equal starting points. But are they? The creationist's model begins with an infinitely intelligent, transcendent creator who is distinct and separate from the universe. Using intelligent design, information and experience, the creator designed and created everything from the subatomic particles to giant redwood trees. Was it a miracle? Absolutely! The atheists model begins with an even more impressive miracle: (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1663) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 8/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:ef18 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 37363cfe (Continued from previous message) the appearance of all the matter in the universe from nothing, by no one and for no reason. A supernatural event! A miracle! However, they do not believe in an outside "first cause" we call God. So they have no "natural explanation" and they have no "supernatural explanation" for the origin of matter. So the atheist is leaves us hanging in a totally dissatisfying position. He begins his model for the universe with a supernatural event; however this supernatural event is accomplished without a supernatural agent to perform the miracle. Now since each model begins with a miracle, we must ask which of the two miracles seems most likely? The creationist's miracle is preceded by the presence of a "first cause." This first cause, came up with the concept, the blueprints and the reason for making the universe. The evolutionary miracle states that matter just arose from nothingness. No "first cause" prior to the miraculous appearance of matter is allowed in the materialist's model. Consequently, the evolutionist's miracle is even more amazing, requiring even more faith to believe: That 10**70 atoms (a one with 70 zeros after it) could arise without a cause, from nothing, for no reason, is very insulting to the intellect. If you sit back and think about these two options, both supernatural miracles (i.e. not explainable by the natural laws of nature), isn't it more logical to believe that the miracle of the appearance of the universe was the result of a first cause, i.e. GOD! Cosmic Evolution and The Second Law of Thermodynamics Assuming by some miracle that matter could arise by itself from nothing, the next problem is to explain how randomly arranged matter became organized into highly organized non-random structures like galaxies, solar systems and living creatures. Evolutionists contend that after the big bang, matter somehow collected into highly organized galaxies, stars and solar systems by random chance. This definitely represents a change from disorder to order. Everyone knows that explosions do not produce order. This fact has been recognized by many prominent scientists. Imagine a cosmic explosion that sends matter racing out from a point in all directions. Here you have a pretty good picture of the early stage of the big bang. A problem arises, however, in explaining how matter flying straight out from this cosmic explosion came to form gigantic structures with curvilinear motion. No known force will cause matter to collect into giant curvilinear structures from matter that is flying out straight way from a point in space. Our solar system is a giant structure in which the planets rotate around the Sun. The rotation of the planets is an example of curvilinear motion. Astronomers speculate that our solar system was formed by a giant rotating gas cloud that condensed into the Sun and the planets. However, major problems in this model has been discovered. If our solar system condensed from a giant gas cloud, then such a model predicts a solar system in which the majority of the angular momentum should be in the Sun. Angular momentum is a force which is equal to the speed of rotation multiplied by the mass of the object. Angular Momentum = (mass of the object) x (Speed of rotation) In a swirling gas cloud, the matter at the center rotates faster than the matter at the outer edges. This is what we see in a tornado. The gas cloud model would also predict that the center of the cloud would be more dense, i.e. have more matter. Therefore, the gas cloud model for the origin of our solar system predicts that at the center of the system we should have the greatest mass and the fastest rotation. Therefore, the greatest angular momentum. Astronomers have discovered that the Sun contains 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of the angular momentum. 98% of the angular momentum is in the planets! This is because the Sun is rotating very slowly. This indicates that our solar system could not have arisen from a rotating gas cloud. "One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum." In fact, no model for formation of the solar system has been able to fully account for the curvilinear rotation and the angular momentum. This may seem like a minor point, but it destroys the gas cloud model and points out a severe deficiency in the big bang model. This has been noted by a few prominent scientists. This problem was recognized by Don Page, Ph.D., an evolutionist and physicist, from Pennsylvania State University. He wrote in the British journal Nature: "The time asymmetry of the universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy (randomness) increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that he early (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1664) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 9/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:1319 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 37363ff7 (Continued from previous message) universe was in a highly ordered state ....There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state." World famous British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge University, recently wrote in Science Digest, May 1984: "I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers." Regarding the orderly state of the universe, Evolutionist and Physicist H.J.Lipson said in Physics Bulletin Vol 31, pg. 138, 1980: "I think however that we must go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." Sir James Jeans, Cambridge University wrote in his book, The Mysterious Universe, the following: "A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion that may be summed up... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.. The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy (randomness or disorder) of the universe must forever increase to it's final value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It (randomness) is still increasing rapidly...there must have been what we may describe as 'creation' at a time not infinitely remote." Consider this provocative quote by Gordon Van Wylen in his book, Thermodynamics: "A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into a state of reduced entropy (highly organized, non-random) in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy? ... The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe." Regarding the orderliness of the cosmos, evolutionist W. Penfield, M.D., F.R.S. stated in his book, The Mystery of the Mind: "The wonder is...that there should be a universe at all, with it's laws and plan and apparent purpose" Some scientists have tried to find a loop hole in the 2nd law. Some have tried to claim that it does not apply to the question of the origin and development of life. However, this has never been demonstrated experimentally. Physicists G.N.Hatspoulous and E.P.Gyftopoulos wrote in their book, Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics: "There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or it's corollaries..." Frank A. Greco, writing in American Laboratory said: 'an answer can readily be given to the question, 'Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented ?' NOT YET. " World famous evolutionist, former atheist (dead now) and anti-creationist Isaac Asimov confirms that "Another way of stating the 2nd law is, the universe is constantly getting more disorderly!... In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by it self and that's what the second law is all about. " As we can see, these men recognize the dilemma and the difficulty of a cosmos with incredible design and order. A cosmos that was much more orderly in the past, and is becoming more disorderly all the time. A cosmos arising by random processes in total defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Impossible by natural law. The second law of thermodynamics has been declared by many to be the most certain law in the universe. In a delightful book called A Brief History of Eternity by Roy Peacock (Professor of Aerospace sciences) chronicles the discoveries of science that have led many scientists to concur that there must be a creator. In this book he demonstrates the preeminence of the 2nd law as the supreme law in the universe. He quotes Sir Arthur Eddington, Professor of astronomy at Cambridge University in England: (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1665) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 10/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:ffd6 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 37363ff9 (Continued from previous message) "The law that entropy always increases (the second law of thermodynamics) holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. Someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations(on electricity), then so much the worse for Maxwell s equations.... But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope: There is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." Who wound up the universe in the first place? For the creationist there is an obvious answer to this dilemma. Therefore, the creation model has one more step answered than the evolutionary scenario: The hand that wound the clock and the "cosmic chicken", are one and the same! He is the God of the Bible. The only God of any "Holy Book" that claims to be outside our dimensions of space and time. If he is outside time and space, he is therefore in a position to be that creator. Consequently, if he claims to be that creator, we had better heed his word! As we can see, the laws of thermodynamics pose a difficult problem for the theory of evolution and it's corollaries. Yet, the scientific world continues to push the theory of evolution as a "fact." In order to get to the organized universe we see today, without a creator, we need to start with two miracles. First, the appearance of matter from nothing, in defiance of the first law. Next, we need to see the development or order from non order, on a massive scale, in defiance of the second law. Both of these events, if they could occur, are supernatural events, i.e. miracles. These are poor starting places for a materialistic universe in which supernatural events are not allowed to operate. The Bible and Thermodynamics By now you probably won't be surprised to find that the concepts of the laws of thermodynamics have been in the Bible for thousands of years, waiting to be discovered by the "wisest people that have ever lived", i.e. modern scientists. The First Law and the Bible As we have seen, the first law states that all the matter and energy in the universe remains constant. Mass and energy can be transformed to different states, but they cannot be created nor destroyed by natural methods. This is often referred to as the law of conservation of mass and energy. From a scientific point of view, no one knows why energy and matter are conserved. We just know that it is. However, from a Biblical point of view, we know that energy is conserved because in Genesis 2:2-3 we are told: "and on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made." Other references on the completed work of God, indicating that nothing else is being created, are found throughout the Bible: "the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, and God did rest on the seventh day from all his works." Heb 4:3-4 "You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all the things that are on it, the seas, and all that is in them, and You preserve them all." Nehemiah 9:6 Also see Ps 148:6, Isa 40:26, II Pet 3:7, Heb 4:10 The interesting thing about all these references is that they speak in the past tense about the creation. Nowhere in the Bible does it speak of creation still going on. A small point maybe, but still amazing when you consider it was written by over forty authors from such varied backgrounds. A subtle evidence of the divine inspiration of the text. So according to the Bible, matter is not being made nor annihilated at this time anywhere in the universe. The Second Law and the Bible The second law of thermodynamics, the law of increasing entropy (randomness), as we have seen, is absolutely true, in all known experiments to date! This law may seem obvious to us as we see examples of decay and wearing out all of our lives. As expected, the Bible gives examples of this in many places. But what is surprising is that the Bible describes the second law in situations that have only recently been discovered. There are passages in the Bible that refer to the concept of the decay of the cosmos. This fact was not discovered until this century with the advent of super telescopes and the discovery of laws of thermodynamics. Lets look at a few examples. "Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1666) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 11/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:03d7 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 37363af0 (Continued from previous message) are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but you will endure. Yes, all of them will grow old like a garment: Like a cloak you will change Them, and they will be changed." Ps 103:25-26 "For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, the earth will grow old like a garment, and those who dwell in it will die in like manner." Isaiah 51:6 "Heaven and earth are passing away, but my words shall not pass away." Matt 24:35 Also see Rom 8:20-22, I John 2:17, Heb 12:27 The interesting thing to note is the knowledge that the whole universe and the earth are wearing out, was totally foreign to the minds of the "great thinkers" of the last 3000 years. Aristotle believed that the universe was static, eternal and would never wear out. This belief was predominant in the men of science for nearly 3000 years. Even Isaac Newton, a Christian, believed in an eternal, static universe. I'm sure that the Biblical view, that the universe would wear out, was mocked over the centuries by the "educated establishment." Well, they aren't laughing anymore. There are also many references that refer to the decay of living organisms. The cause of death has been a mystery over the millennia. At the time the Bible was written, death was not thought of as a process of decay. Nor was the development of randomness in the structure of living things known to men of science. With the advent of molecular biology in the last 25 years, we now know that "dying of old age" is due to the irreversible nature of the second law and the decay of living tissue! Molecular biologists now know that the process of death is due to the accumulation of errors in the genetic code of life. This chemical code, Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), consists of long strings of chemicals called nucleotidase held together by chemical bonds. These strings of DNA hold the instructions necessary to make a human being. Over time this code gets corrupted with copying errors and the cells begin to function improperly. This results in disorder in the cell's metabolism and eventually death due to decay. The decay process, leading to death, has been taught in the Bible for 3500 years, waiting to be discovered by 20th century scientists. Lets look at a few examples. "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken: for dust you are and to dust you shall return." Genesis 3:19 In this amazing passage we see two examples of scientific foreknowledge. We are told that man is made from dust! In modern times, it turns out, that scientists have determined that living creatures are composed of the same chemicals you would find in the dirt out in your flower garden. Secondly, the Bible tells us that we return to dust, a state of greater disorder, when we die. "For what happens to the sons of men also happens to the beasts; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely they all have one breath: man has no advantage over beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place: all are from the dust and all return to dust." Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 In this passage we see again the claim that man decays to dust, consistent with the second law and our modern knowledge of the decay of the human body. Secondly, it was not known that man and beast were made of the same "stuff." To suggest that possibility in some circles would be frowned upon I'm sure. Also see Job 14:1-2, Ps 103:15-16, Isaiah 40:6-8. Despite hundreds of years of liberals theologians, atheists and agnostics hammering away at the Bible, we see another evidence of divine inspiration of the text in the scientific foreknowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and cosmology. Scientists Scramble for an Alternative The scientific evidence so far demonstrates that the universe is expanding and that it's three components, time, space and matter, also appeared at a finite point in time. The evidence also reveals that many characteristics of the universe exist within very narrow margins which can support life. If these characteristics were to vary slightly, life could not exist in the universe. But as previously noted, the evidence does nothing to explain where the matter came from in the first place. This dilemma can only be solved by the introduction of a supernatural event. The Oscillating Universe Model (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1667) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 12/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:47d7 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373631f2 (Continued from previous message) There have been several variations of the Big Bang theory proposed over the past few decades. Each one has been proposed in order to explain away the apparent fact that the universe had a beginning. The most popular alternative is the "Oscillation model." The oscillation model proposes that the universe is in a state of endless expansion and contraction events. Each cycle of explosion, expansion, contraction taking 5,100 billion years. This model takes the old assumption that matter is eternal and combines it with the evidence that the universe is expanding. There are, however, fatal flaws to this model. The first problem is that there is not enough matter in the universe to accomplish the re-collapse of the universe. The force of gravity is the force that would accomplish such an event; i.e. re-collapse. However, for the gravitational attraction to be strong enough to pull the matter back to the beginning point, it would have to overcome the current speed of expansion. The force of gravity acts on matter to pull that matter together. However, there is not enough matter in the universe and it is expanding too fast for the force of gravity to ever pull the matter back and reverse the expansion. Jastrow shows that in order for the universe to collapse back on itself, under the force of gravitation, the universe would need to have an average density of at least one hydrogen atom in a volume of 10 cubic feet. The known amount of matter is way too small by a factor of 1000 times. Because of this lack of matter, many cosmologists have speculated that there is a huge amount of "dark matter" that can't be seen but is acted on by gravity to help produce a re-collapse of the universe. Even if we assume that 99% of the matter in the universe is non-visible, cold, dark matter, there is still not enough by a factor of 10. Again Robert Jastrow: "Yet, although the estimated density of matter in the universe is greatly increased as a result of this determination (adding cold dark matter), it is still more than ten times too small to bring the expansion of the universe to a halt... Thus, the facts indicate that the universe will expand forever! " The most devastating problem for the "Oscillating Universe" model are the laws of thermodynamics. The second law of course states that in all systems, the available energy to do work diminishes as time progresses. We have seen a few examples of this previously; e.g. the wound up clock. Another example will help us to see why the second law forbids the oscillation model. Take the example of a bouncing ball. When one drops a ball on the ground we notice that it never bounces back as high as it was when it was dropped. This is because when the ball hits the ground, under the influence of the force of gravity, energy is lost in the form of heat. Therefore, less energy is available to push the ball back up into the air, just as the second law predicts. After each successive bounce the ball goes up less and less until all the energy used to raise the ball in the first place is dissipated as heat. This bouncing ball example is an almost exact representation of what happens when we talk about an oscillation model for the big bang. Even if the universe could collapse and explode numerous times, there would still be a loss of energy as dictated by the second law. Therefore, there could be only a limited number of expansion and contraction events. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, Ph.D., in his book "The Fingerprint of God", devotes an entire chapter to the oscillation universe model and the reasons why it won't work. He states that the mass of the universe is only about 40% of that necessary to cause the universe to re-collapse. He also states that there is no known physical mechanism that could realistically be expected to reverse a cosmic contraction. Finally, he re-affirms that the second law of thermodynamics would prevent a "bounce", or re-expansion because of the energy lost from the previous expansion event. He compares it to dropping a ball of wet clay on the carpet. Instead of getting a bounce, you get a splat! "Thus, even if the universe contained sufficient mass to force an eventual collapse, that collapse would not produce a bounce. Far too much of the energy of the universe is dissipated in unreclaimable form to fuel a bounce. Like a lump of wet clay falling on a carpet, the universe if it did collapse would go splat." So a never ending succession of expansions and contractions would be forbidden by the second law. The second law will never allow you to break even. Eventually you must get around to explaining who or what wound up and ordered the universe for its first expansion event. Using the old "cop out " of eternal matter cannot work either. There are a couple of reasons for this. First the second law forbids a ball of highly ordered matter (the cosmic egg) to sit unchanging in space forever, while (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1668) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 13/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:bbd6 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373633ff (Continued from previous message) waiting to mysteriously explode for no reason. The second law, which is universal and absolute, simply forbids any ball of matter to stay perfectly ordered and retain its original amount of energy as time proceeds foreword. Eventually, as dictated by the second law, all the matter in the universe will become disordered and die a heat death. There is another reason why matter cannot be eternal is the fact of proton decay. Protons are positively charged particles which are in the nucleus of every atom. For decades it was assumed that protons were stable for eternity. However, it has been recently discovered that protons decay into quarks, gamma rays and irretrievable electromagnetic radiation. In 1030 years half the protons in the universe will have been decayed into these products. This process is irreversible, therefore, eventually all the atoms will decay into irretrievable stuff! The big bang is presented by virtually all scientific and lay sources as if it is accepted universally by all astronomers and astrophysicists as a scientific fact. However, there are prominent dissenters in the scientific community. In a recent article in Scientific American, February 1992, Geoffrey Burbidge, Ph.D. Physicist and former director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory makes some of the most frank comments ever regarding the big bang. "Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western Civilization. It rests, however on many untested, and in some cases un testable assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth. Regarding the media and scientific bias he states: Extensive coverage has appeared in the New York Times, the London Economist and the Wall Street Journal, all based on interviews only with believers in the big bang.... Astronomical textbooks no longer treat cosmology as an open subject. Instead authors take the attitude that the correct theory has been found....it is extraordinarily difficult to get financial support or viewing time on a telescope unless one writes a proposal that follows the party line.. " "This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously flawed.. Regarding the ability of the big bang to explain the origin of great structures such as galaxies, Burbidge states: "Within the framework of the hot big bang, there is no satisfactory theory of how galaxies and larger structures formed" We saw earlier that Fred Hoyle and Don Page were also disgruntled with the big bang because of it's inability to explain the origin of the tremendous order in the universe. Scientists Find God? In April 1992 newspapers, magazines, the television networks around the world reported that scientists in the United States had found a key piece of evidence that "proved the big bang." Using data from the NASA satellite called the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), scientists reported they had found the remnants of the big bang by measuring the background radiation in deep space. It was predicted that if the universe began as a sudden burst of light and heat that there would be a faint background microwave radiation. As we saw earlier this was in fact found in 1964. A problem developed for the big bang, however, because the radiation was found to be too smooth to explain the giant "walls of galaxies " found by astronomers in 1990. Astrophysicists predicted that if matter did condense into the great super-structures, such as walls of galaxies, then the "Echo" of the explosion and it's subsequent condensation into superstructures, would leave slight variations or ripples in the background radiation. Big bang proponents believe that small clumps of gas, in the early growing fireball, grew by gravitational attraction into stars, galaxies and walls of galaxies. These primordial clumps of matter would have been "hot spots" in the developing universe and would have left evidence of their existence as a "warm spot" in the background radiation. The resultant picture would be a speckled map of relatively warm and cold spots in the background radiation. In the recent April 1992 COBE announcement, team leader George Smoot declared that the team had found the "hot and cool spots" in the background radiation. That is, they found that there are regions in the universe where the microwave background radiation varies by one millionth of a degree. This was felt to be enough of a variation to explain the origin of these giant structures. (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1669) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 14/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:cfd7 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 37363fff (Continued from previous message) According to Smoot ,the "Big Bang" was now proven. In fact, Smoot declared:"If you're religious its like looking at God!' Shortly after this unconventional "media circus" announcement, the scientific community began to evaluate the COBE team's findings and the interpretation. In June 1992 a scientific assembly of some of the world's most noted cosmologists was held at Princeton University to discuss the findings. The highly respected journal Science reported the opinions of a number of these cosmologists: "Contrary to newspaper account last April, NASA 's COBE satellite did not find traces of God, nor did it rescue a supposedly ailing Big Bang theory from imminent demise. " "The interpretations are all over the place...Now there is less agreement than before. " Edwin Turner, Princeton University Astrophysicist. According to Dr. Geoffrey Burbidge, Astrophysicist at the University of California, San Diego, even with the new evidence, the big bang is still incapable of explaining the origin of spiraling galaxies and larger structures. Burbidge points out that for the big bang theory to explain the origin of these structures, astrophysicists must invoke the existence of dark "non-byronic matter." This is commonly referred to as "exotic matter." And, according to Burbidge and other Astrophysicists, there is absolutely no experimental or observational evidence for this exotic matter. Another explanation entirely overlooked by the COBE team is a well known phenomenon first described by Soviet astrophysicists, R.A. Sunyaev and Ya. B. Zeo'dovich in 1970. They pointed out that as the background radiation passes through large clouds of interstellar gas the radiation is scattered and would be measured as a different wavelength from the surrounding background radiation. The result would be the same speckled pattern that COBE scientists discovered. There is also the concern that the sensitivity of the instruments is inadequate to detect a difference of one millionth of a degree. One team member declared that the alleged "bumps" in the data are "well below the level of instrumental noise " and you can't point to any one point in the data and say that's a signal and that's noise." Even team leader George Smoot points out that he is "going out on a limb" until other experiments back him up. Finally, no one knows whether the bumps in the background radiation are really intense enough to explain the origin of large scale structures. The big bang proponents had calculated that the "bumps" in the background radiation should be l/l000th of a degree. The fluctuations measured by COBE were actually 1000 times weaker than the expected value. Dr. Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos Laboratory and others have hypothesized that the background radiation is the glow from a radio fog produced in the present day universe. Peratt's theory predicts fluctuations about the same degree as were detected by the COBE satellite. In addition, he and his colleagues point out that the microwave radiation would be absorbed when traveling inter-galactic distances of billions of light years. The result, again, would be the type of irregular pattern detected by the COBE satellite. To be sure, there is no agreement among scientists as to the cause of the radiation nor is there agreement that it proves the big bang. Choose This Day Whom You Shall Serve: Randomness or Intelligent Design Our search for the cause of this marvelous universe has shown us that the evidence from science is totally compatible with the creation account of only one "Holy Book"-the Bible. The evidence reveals that the universe is not eternal, that it began at a certain point in time, and that the universe began in a sudden burst of light and energy, just as the book of Genesis told us. "And God said 'let there be light' and there was light" Genesis 1:3 No other "Holy Book" teaches this concept. They all assume that matter is eternal or that God made the universe from pre-existing material ( Mormons believe this). Science has shown us that the universe has many characteristics that give the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth. And in the Bible we are told that it was designed by an omniscient creator who is distinct and separate from his creation. The Bible is also the only book that you can prove had its origin from a being that exists outside our time-space domain. This is exactly where a creator would have to be in order to create this universe and prove it to us. Just as I exist outside and separate from the works of my hands, so must the (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1670) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 15/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:33d6 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 37367df4 (Continued from previous message) creator of the universe be able to demonstrate that he exists separate and distinct from the universe. We have seen that the laws of thermodynamics tell us that the universe will wear out like a garment in time, a fact the Bible has taught for thousands of years. Again NASA scientist Robert Jastrow: "Now three lines of evidence -the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the universe had a beginning!!!" We have seen that the great rotating structures, like galaxies and solar systems, cannot be explained by an explosion and random chance. So, although the facts show that the universe had a beginning, that it is winding down, that it was designed and that it cannot continually expand and contract, the true facts don't support the idea that it began with an un-aided explosion. If the universe did begin in an awesome appearance of light and heat, it was then carefully guided and crafted into it's current highly orderly state. Again, Robert Jastrow: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries!" So the universe had a beginning and it will have an end, unless, as the Bible says, the one who wound up the universe intervenes first to re-make it. "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth..and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes: there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying: and there be no more pain, the former things have passed away." Revelation 21:1 & 4 Despite this evidence, the evolutionary theory, beginning with a Godless origin for the universe, is taught as a fact in the majority of western schools today. In the motion picture STAR TREK: THE MOVIE, we are introduced to a powerful creature named V-GER. In this movie we see that V-GER develops immense knowledge, power and wealth and builds an elaborate structure for protection around himself. V-GER sets out on a voyage to discover the answers of his existence. V-GER sends a being to the earth in search of his creator. During this search, V-GER'S envoy encounters the Star Trek team. When V-GER encounters the humans (The Carbon Units), he states that he is going to destroy the carbon units because they suppressed the knowledge of the creator. When Spock finds V-GER and does his Vulcan mind meld with V-GER, he discovers that despite V-GER'S incredible knowledge and power, V-GER is barren and empty. V-GER states that he has no hope, no answers to the quest which he has set out upon. Like an adolescent, V-GER lashes out in anger and frustration because of his failure to find the answers he was looking for. V-GER asks "Is this all that I am, is there nothing more." This emptiness we are told is due to the fact that V-GER has been unable to find and commune with it's creator. V-GER, it turns out, is a several hundred year old Voyager satellite made by allegedly "intelligent human beings." So in this story we see an incredible irony. A machine, much less complicated than man, has a need for a knowledge of his creator and sets out to find him. Yet we live in a society in which most of the greatest minds in our colleges and universities, the creators of V-GER, teach that we are the products of blind chance, time and matter. Paul the Apostle had some sobering thoughts about "carbon units" that suppress the truth of the creator. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man; and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1:18-25 (Continued to next message) --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1671) Fri 9 May 97 13:46 By: Mike Melia To: RICHARD SMITH Re: Evidence 16/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:77d6 22a96dc0 @SPTH: Fidonet#1:320/118 @MSGID: 1:320/118@Fidonet 373674fa (Continued from previous message) References 1) Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .ppl1,W.W. Norton & Co, New York 2) Eisberg, Robert M.Fundamentals of Modern Physics. New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1961,pp 7-9. 3)Einstein, Albert. The Principle of Rekltivitv in Annals of Physics, 17:891-921, 1905). also Relativity by Albert Einstein, Crown Books 4)Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 23, W.W. Norton & Co, New York 5)Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 14-15, W.W. Norton & Co, New York 6)Lerner, Eric,J. The Bi# Bang Never HaDDened, pp27 Vintage Books, Nov 1992 7)Hawking,Steven W. and Ellis, George F.R. "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152. (1968), pp25-36 8) Hawking,Steven W. and Penrose, Roger. " The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology" Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp 529-548. 9) Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 27, W.W. Norton & Co, New York 10) Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 16 W.W. Norton & Co, New York 11) Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 14 W.W.Norton & Co, New York 12) Barrow, John D, and Tippler, Frank J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle . New York, Oxford University Press, 1986 13) Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 48 W.W.Norton & Co, New York 14) Frank Stacey, Physics of the Earth N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, 1969, p.4 15) Page, Don. Nature July,1983 Volume 304:39-40 16) Hoyle, Fred. Science Digest Vol 92, May 1984, pg. 84 17) Lipson, H.J. physics Bulletin Vol 31, pg. 138, 1980: 18) Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe. Cambridge University Press.pp 181 19) Van Wylen ,Gordon . Thermodynamics, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959)pg 169. 20) Penfield,W., M.D., F.R.S., The Mystery of the Mind: 21) Hatspoulous,G.N. and Gyftopoulos,E.P. Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics: 22) Frank A. Greco, American Laboratory, Vol 14:80-88. 23) Morris, Henry The Biblical Basis for Modern Science. Masters Books, Santee, Ca. 24) Peacock, Roy A Brief History of Etemitv. pg 75 Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Ill 25) Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 125 W.W. Norton & Co, New York 26) Ross,Hugh, The Fingerprint of God. pp l05 27) Burbidge, Geoffrey, Scientific American, February 1992,Guest Editorial 28) Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1992 29) Science, July 1992 30) Personal communication with Geoffrey Burbidge, strophysicist, UCSD Sept 4th 1992. 31) R.A. Sunyaev and Ya.B.Zel'dovich, Small-scale fluctuations of relic radiation," Astrophysics an# Space Science 7:3-19, 1970. 32) Silk, J. "Cosmology Back to the Beginning," Nature 356:741-742, April 1992 33) ibid. 34) Lerner, Eric,J. The Big Bang Never Happened. pp xxi, 276 Vintage Books, Nov 1992 35) Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 111, W.W.Norton & Co, New York 36) Jastrow, Robert . God and the Astronomers .pp 116, W.W.Norton & Co, New York --- þ QMPro 1.53 þ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage --- AdeptXBBS v1.09.37 (*FREEWare*) * Origin: Computer Caddie Groton,CT *12 Gig* 860-405-1603/5/7 (1:320/118) SEEN-BY: 12/12 24/888 102/2 943 105/72 106/2000 109/7 114/262 441 124/1 SEEN-BY: 130/1 1008 133/2 143/1 147/34 2021 167/166 170/400 202/777 1207 SEEN-BY: 213/213 218/2 801 890 900 901 907 270/101 275/429 280/1 169 SEEN-BY: 282/1 62 283/120 284/29 300/603 310/666 322/739 323/107 324/278 SEEN-BY: 343/600 346/250 352/3 356/18 371/42 377/86 380/64 382/92 387/5 SEEN-BY: 388/1 396/1 45 690/660 730/2 2401/0 2442/0 3603/420 3612/41 SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3632/21 3651/9 3652/1 3667/1 3828/2 @PATH: 320/119 270/101 396/1 218/907 801