Search This Blog

Saturday, July 07, 2012

"God Particle" does not change the game. God or Chance, take your pick!

I was reading downstairs when the news began talking about the "God particle" and my wife turned it up for me to hear.  I yelled up, "They just finally observed the Higgs boson, no big deal!"
Sure enough, in a few minutes the announcer had named the particle as expected.  Anyone who follows science to the extent of geek knew about the Higgs boson.   


Are you scratching your head about all the recent buzz over the so-called “God particle,” “Higgs boson,” the several-billion-dollar collider under the Alps, and how they all supposedly relate to the origins of the universe? If you have been following the news stories, you would think that the elusive “God particle” is considered the key to understanding how mass was formed right after an alleged big bang. Does it? Also, don’t let God’s name in the nickname confuse you; this is a totally secular effort by scientists to explain the universe without a Creator.

Ultimately, it’s as much a collision of ideas as it is particles. As we prep our analysis of yesterday’s Higgs boson claim (which we will post Saturday on this website in our News to Note column), read our previous article, Beams Collide Today in Expensive Hadron Collider, to help make sense of this confusing topic and also discover what the Bible declares about the universe’s creation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using the Large Hadron Collider, scientists have sought to observe the last particle that had been hypothesized to exist.   The expectation was there because standard Physics had predicted that it did in fact exist.   Now they probably know they have observed it for a tiny fraction of a second.  At the time of the announcement they were not absolutely certain.  I supposed 99 and 44 per cent?  Ivory Soap certain?

Picture credit

It is no big deal, it certainly has no bearing on whether the Big Bang actually happened.   But Spike Psarris of CreationAstronomy.com lays it all out and adds more interesting information so cue Spike!



Creation Astronomy News

Volume III, Number 2

In this issue (now in a spiffy new HTML format!):
  • Higgs Boson: The So-Called 'God Particle' Is Found
  • Alien Planets and Dinosaurs
  • Astronomical Discoveries, Our Sun, and the Book of Isaiah


Particle collisions
Image credit: Fermilab, US DOE

Higgs Boson:
The So-Called
“God Particle”
Is Found


Yesterday, a momentous announcement was made by scientists working at the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) in Europe.

The Higgs boson has been discovered. (Or at least, there’s a new particle consistent with the characteristics expected of the Higgs.)

Media reports are breathlessly calling it “the God particle.” Other reports claim that this discovery confirms the Big Bang model.

Neither statement is true.

What is the Higgs boson? It is one of the fundamental particles in physics. These are believed to be the building blocks of everything else.

Specifically, the Higgs boson is the particle associated with the Higgs field – the current model explaining how matter has mass.

The Higgs boson is an important part of the so-called Standard Model of particle physics. Without it, the whole model falls apart.

Now that the Higgs boson is supported by data, particle physicists are breathing deep sighs of relief.

Nevertheless, the “God particle” name is inappropriate. The Higgs boson is just one particle among many in the model. (The “God particle” phrase comes from the title of a 1993 physics book.) Most of this particle’s fame comes from the extreme difficulty of confirming (or denying) its existence. 

So much for the God particle. What about the claim that this boson confirms the Big Bang? 

The current Big Bang model assumes that the Standard Model for particles is true. Thus, the Big Bang model requires the Higgs boson to exist. 

Without the Higgs, the Big Bang model would be in deep trouble.

But the opposite is not true. Even if the Higgs boson exists, this doesn’t require that a Big Bang happened.

The Standard Model of particle physics is the most popular model (at the moment) for how the Universe works at a fundamental level. 

However, it doesn’t tell us anything about where the Universe itself came from.

Nevertheless, there are many media reports trying to convince you otherwise. Since the evolutionary worldview is based on the Big Bang, evolutionists will interpret the LHC announcement as support for it.

But the Higgs only supports the Big Bang model if you already assume that the Big Bang model is true. 

Somehow I doubt that news reporters will include that last point in their stories.



Dinosaur

Alien Planets Have “Advanced” Dinosaurs. Yes, Really.

An important announcement from a top scientist


Dr. Ronald Breslow is a noted scientist at Columbia University. Among other accomplishments, he’s a member of multiple scientific academies around the world, has won the U.S. National Medal of Science, and is the past President of the American Chemical Society. He even has an award named after him (the Ronald Breslow Award in Biomimetic Chemistry).

In other words, he’s one of America’s most respected scientists.

That’s why it was big news recently when he announced that dinosaurs probably rule other planets.

But not just any dinosaurs. “Advanced” dinosaurs.

You might think such a crackpot claim would be dismissed by his fellow scientists. You’d be wrong. 

Breslow published a paper1 about this in the highly-respected Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Before discussing his ‘reasoning’, let’s get some background.

Life here on Earth has defied evolutionary efforts to explain its origins. Among many other challenges, life is composed of proteins that are made exclusively of amino acids that have a certain geometry (often called “left-handed”). 

Conversely, sugars are all made of right-handed amino acids.

Why is this important? Because when you make amino acids in the laboratory, you always get an equal mixture of both kinds.

You never get only one kind. In fact, even if you separate out the two kinds from each other, you won’t have pure samples for long. Some of the amino acids in each batch will change back to the other kind. (This process is called racemization.)

Evolutionists who believe that life formed by itself without a Creator have a real problem here. They need random mixtures of chemicals to somehow sort themselves out into pure solutions of non-racemic amino acids, and stay that way.

But this is chemically impossible.

Anyway, back to the alien dinosaurs…

Professor Breslow knows about the ‘handedness’ problem (known more formally as the ‘chirality’ problem) for the origin of life. And he’s been trying to figure it out.

Here’s a summary of his proposed solution.

Millions of years ago, meteorites were flying through space and hit the Earth. These meteorites were carrying a slight excess of left-handed amino acids compared to right-handed ones.

Then, through a series of complicated chemical processes, the left-handed ones got concentrated together. Eventually, thanks to a long process of “evolutionary success,” life formed.

The holes in this story are wide enough to drive a truck through. Breslow himself acknowledges that it’s incomplete, and that it merely “fills in some of the cracks” in the chirality problem.

If it ended there, his scientific paper would have been a yawner to everybody except other biochemists interested in the origins of life. But he couldn’t resist adding one final paragraph to the end.

He concluded the paper by noting that since meteorites had seeded life on Earth, they probably would have done so elsewhere too. Therefore:

“An implication of this work is that elsewhere in the universe there could exist life forms based on D amino acids and L sugars… Such life forms could even be advanced versions of dinosaurs, if mammals did not have the good fortune to have the dinosaurs wiped out by an asteroidal collision, as on Earth.”

As he explained later to an interviewer, the mammals on Earth that evolved and “became us” were only able to do so because an asteroid collision had wiped out the dinosaurs. 

Therefore, “on a planet similar to ours without the asteroid collision it is unlikely that human types would be there, more probably advanced lizards [dinosaurs]”.

Not only that, he concluded his paper with an ominous warning. These alien dinosaurs would be so advanced that:

“We would be better off not meeting them.”

(Apparently their alien dino-technology is better than ours. There’s nothing worse than meeting an aggressive alien dinosaur who has better weapons than you do.)

So there you go. 

One of the country’s top scientists has applied the ‘science’ of evolution and shown that there are “advanced” dinosaurs ruling alien planets.

So advanced, in fact, that “we would be better off not meeting them.”

Meanwhile, creationists are ridiculed in the media as “not knowing how science works.” 

The irony here is rich.



Flare on red dwarf star
A red dwarf star.
Image credit: Casey Reed/NASA

Astronomical Discoveries,
Our Sun, and the
Book of Isaiah

Evolutionists like to claim that our Sun is merely an average star, just one among billions. There’s no reason to believe our Sun is unusual–or so they say.

After all, if our Sun were special, that might support the idea that a benevolent Creator made it for us.

Nevertheless, our Sun is special indeed. If you’ve seen my second astronomy DVD, you know that Chapter 6 shows how our Sun is unique.

Recent discoveries continue to support this. 

As I pointed out in my DVD, stars come in a variety of sizes, colors, and temperatures. As a single ‘Class G’ star, our Sun is very well suited to support life on Earth. 

Most other stars are not.

For example, the most common stars (about 75 percent of all stars) are red dwarfs, as shown above.

These stars commonly emit flares: eruptions of superheated material, radiation, and charged particles blasted out into space. They do this so frequently that they’re often called “flare stars.”

Large-enough flares can sterilize any planets orbiting these stars.

Although our Sun occasionally releases small flares, they’re gentle compared to what we see elsewhere. We’ve seen other stars produce “superflares” up to 10 million times more energetic than those from our Sun.

Is our Sun so quiet merely because of its size, temperature, and other characteristics? No.

Even among Sun-like stars, our Sun is unique. 

A recent study2 of solar-type stars found that many had erupted in superflares. Of 83,000 stars that were observed, 148 erupted in just 120 days of observing.

Extend this rate out, and each solar-type star would have more than a 50% chance of erupting every 100 years. This result is consistent with previous studies that showed that solar-type stars erupt about once per century.

Over thousands of years, a typical Sun-like star should have multiple massive eruptions. Yet there is no evidence that our Sun has ever emitted a superflare.

As the study’s summary in Nature noted, “The flares on our Sun are thousands of times punier than those on similar stars.” But why?

Secular astronomers are scratching their heads over this. 

They attribute the Sun’s gentleness to a lack of large sunspots. But that doesn’t really explain anything. Why should the Sun have smaller sunspots than other solar-type stars? They don’t know.

But creationary astronomers aren’t surprised by this. As Isaiah 45:18 says, the Lord created the heavens and Earth “not in vain… He formed it to be inhabited.”

Since our Sun was designed by a masterful Creator to support life, we shouldn’t be surprised that it supports life very well.

Meanwhile, secular scientists are still grasping for some excuse to deny a Creator. They still wish to find other worlds like ours, so that ours won’t seem so unique.

Artist's conception of a planet in the habitable zone around a red dwarf
Illustration Credit & Copyright: Inga Nielsen (Hamburg Obs., Gate to Nowhere)
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120429.html

But even the most “habitable” places they can find are hellish planets like Gliese 876. Click on the picture to the left to see an artist’s conception of what the surface of this planet might be like.

Our Earth, Sun, and Solar System are fearfully and wonderfully made to be our home – and to proclaim the glory of their Creator.
May His name be praised!





Footnotes

  1. Breslow, R., Evidence for the Likely Origin of Homochirality in Amino Acids, Sugars, and Nucleosides on Prebiotic Earth, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2012, 134 (16), pp 6887-6892, DOI: 10.1021/ja3012897. Interestingly, the paper was retracted a few weeks after publication. Apparently Breslow had “self-plagiarized” – he repeated work that he had already published elsewhere.
  2. http://www.nature.com/news/superflares-erupt-on-some-sun-like-stars-1.10653


Psalm 19:1-4

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Spike Psarris
www.CreationAstronomy.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Spike's DVDs speak for themselves.  He has compiled pictures and evidence from various space missions that have explored the Solar System and beyond.   Click on the "Preview" tab at http://creationastronomy.com/ and watch the beginning of DVD number one.  Just go see for yourselves?

These space missions have helped confirmed Creation Science predictions about the planets and their magnetic fields made by Dr. Russell Humphreys long before the space probes were launched.   Whether Humphreys is correct about the way God created, his predictions made on the assumption that God did create and use water as a basis for creating all things has panned out as secular science has begun to discover.  Other observations, such as the Pioneer anomaly, are explained by Creation Science.  Excerpt:

"Creationist cosmologies explain the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer spacecraft


[Note: This page only shows the abstract plus parts of the introduction and conclusion of the paper. The full paper may be downloaded as a PDF.]

A broad class of creationist cosmologies offer an explanation for the ‘Pioneer effect’, an apparent small Sunward anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. If a large volume of empty space surrounds the matter of the cosmos, so that the cosmos can have a centre of mass, then the matter is in a deep gravitational potential ‘well’. If space is expanding and spreading the matter outward, then the depth of the well is decreasing. According to general relativity, especially a new solution of Einstein’s equations derived in the Appendix (which also deals with Birkhoff’s theorem), the decreasing depth continuously shortens ‘radar’ distances within the well, causing the observed apparent acceleration. The magnitude of the anomalous acceleration implies the bottom of the potential well has not yet risen very far above the critical depth for gravitational time dilation. Thus the Pioneer effect supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recent time dilation. Big bang theorists, whose cosmology does not have a centre of mass, cannot use this explanation. As yet, they have no alternative theory upon which they agree..."   Here is the URL for the online article.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That a "God particle" exists is no surprise.  But God created the very concept of "exist" and that knowledge is the beginning of wisdom.  Now if all these Naturalists who do science would discover God, we'd all be better off!










 

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

"But God created the very concept of "exist"..."

So God does not exist?

radar said...

Wow. Seriously? If God created the concept of exist (that is, material existence), then that existence depends upon and is dependent upon the Transcendent God. So God does exist within the material world as He created it and is present throughout it, but did not need it to be created in order to be.

Anonymous said...

So outside the material world God does not 'exist'? What exactly is the difference between 'being' and 'existing'?

radar said...

Okay, do you understand that the Universe is not eternal? It had a beginning and will have an ending. We know this from the Laws of Thermodynamics and observation. In fact, the Universe is expanding and does not have enough mass to pull it all back together again so there will not be any chance at all of the once-considered "Big Crunch." In fact, the Universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating, which is why the Pioneer Anomaly was so puzzling to NASA. Creationists already expected this, but that is mentioned elsewhere.

Anyway, the Universe had to get a start. Big Bang hypotheses are missing most of the matter and energy they claim is needed plus they have no first cause anyway. Like other Naturalist dogmatic beliefs, they begin with an unexplained miracle.

God, however, is not material. God created material. God made the Universe, and therefore He also made time and gave us the ability to think so we could consider the idea of "exist" in our minds. I doubt that a salmon thinks about whether it exists or not, it just is. But people are able to think abstract thoughts and reason and comprehend things beyond eat, sleep, drink and mate. God gave us that ability.

God told Moses to call Him "I AM" and that means He is self-existent. God exists beyond the material world. We term this the supernatural or spiritual or many other terms. We attempt to comprehend something that may be a bit over our heads. How could God always exist without being created, some ask. But God exists in a way that has no end or beginning. God invented beginnings and endings when He invented time.

Basic theology courses used to be taught in all colleges, because all American colleges in the early days of our existence primarily produced pastors. Yes, the Ivy League schools began as seminaries.

All scientific pursuits are based upon and come from philosophy. Those who start with a naturalist philosophy cannot accept God and try to explain the world without him. Those who do accept God have much less trouble with science. DNA is no surprise to Creationists, nor was an expanding Universe or any other real scientific discoveries made.

Anonymous said...

"God told Moses to call Him "I AM" and that means He is self-existent. God exists beyond the material world."

So there IS a concept of "existing" beyond the material world?

radar said...

Sometimes people discuss concepts and we get to a point where "define terms" is required. The concept of existence we know is a material existence, that is, we exist in a four dimensional material world bounded by three physical dimensions and by time. God is the author of such dimensions and is not limited by them, as He invented them.

So God "exists" and has always done so transcendent to the material world He created. But material existence and therefore the "exist" we experience was not around until the Universe was created. God is not bound by time or space. He made them.

Naturalists like to say that I am being unscientific when I assert this. Yet they have their own God and it is called "chance." They assert that the Universe just popped into existence by chance and also by chance came life and information and the elements and the physical laws and etc. To a Naturalist, all things were just statistically impossible lucky breaks that have just happened against all odds untold gazillions of times in order that all we can observe would exist.

God as the Creator of a logical Universe, Solar System, Earth, physical laws, life and all else makes more sense than luck, especially luck that is statistically impossible times virtually limitless times. I believe there are only 1 times 10^80 electrons in the Universe, so far as we can tell. If all of them were trying to evolve into something 60 times per second for 15 billion years they would not have enough time to make one simple cell by chance. Oh, and where did the electrons come from in that scenario?

God is a rational first cause for an ex nihilo creation of the Universe and all within it. Nothing else suffices.

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY

radar said...

As usual the debunkers swing and miss because they either do not completely get the question or they are willing to settle for bad answers. That video is interesting? Ugh!

In church, when I hear someone say "of the devil" I tend to believe it is actually opinion and often just legalism. With Darwinists, debunking is usually a sign they don't care what is true as long as they have something the average person will swallow whole.

Anonymous said...

It's still an interesting video. And I understand that you rather not address its content.

Thanks for the discussion.

radar said...

Address its content?! When the idea that a tsunami is an argument against God, it is arguing against a straw man. Bring something real!

radar said...

This argument is one big straw man, it completely misses the main points and it assumes all sorts of naturalist talking points that Creationists would not agree with at all.

So the person who made the movie starts with wrong assumptions and then goes from there. A deck full of aces of hearts proves what? The video maker does not understand statistics or information. The maker also fails to understand that Christians invented modern science because they considered it worth their time to examine a logical world made by God. The early greats of science rejected axiomatic science as presumed and presented by Aristotle. Naturalism is an artificial and harmful addition to the scientific method.

Inflation does not lead to many universes nor does it cause a problem for Craation science. In fact the Bible says that God stretched and keeps stretching the Universe. We only recently discovered that the Universe is expanding with acceleration, which is in line with the Bible.

No one has observed infinite Universes. Multiverses are nothing but excuses to move the naturalist problems to a new neighborhood.

The woman in the video has found all sorts of documents which she applies willy-nilly to science and it frankly hurts the brain. Does she have any idea what life consists of at all? Magic is what Darwinists depend upon. That video is Adam Sandlerish gobbledygook! I was trying to be nice, but really, that was sad...Life is highly complex and ordered and interdependent with information and other forms of life. DNA and the Cell are remarkably designed, not random cards tossed about. Ugh!

radar said...

I did send the link to a Creation Science buddy though. I figured he would like to see it, kind of like watching Plan 9 From Outer Space?

radar said...

...or watching Morgan Freeman on Science Channel? Ugh. People who think information is a material thing, people who believe there must be another Universe full of nothing, people who think that there was a very weak, thin Universe that just got bigger until it exploded? I guess people who think it is a great idea to set up a nation on an asteroid and ban apostrophes are the kinds of folks we depend upon to teach us science? http://www.jamescronen.com/?p=24

DogMaBlog said...

I'm trying to figure out how amino acids hopped aboard asteroids that crashed into planets to evolve into dinosaurs and how these life giving asteroids then crashed into earth and killed all the dinosaurs? Asteroids giveth and asteroids taketh away.