Nature

Main page | Jari's writings

How did everything begin?

 

 

We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are

 

 

FOREWARD

 

Regarding the beginning of the universe, the Bible very clearly teaches that God created the universe. It appears in the first verse of Genesis. The same subject appears repeatedly later in the Bible:

 

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

Many people do not think the same nowadays. They do not take the message of the Bible seriously. Instead, they think that everything started by itself. They believe in the “big bang” theory, and that galaxies, stars and the solar system came into being without God’s involvement. They also believe that life was born spontaneously without any supernatural factors influencing it.

   But how reliable and scientific are these thoughts, and is it sensible to trust that everything came into being by itself? How realistic are such thoughts? We are going to examine this topic next.

 

 

1. The beginning of the universe
2. Was there a Big Bang?
3. The birth of galaxies and stars
4. The birth of the solar system and Earth
5. The birth of life

 

 

1. The beginning of the universe

  

THE Beginning of everything. As we start our study, we should start from the beginning of the universe. We already noted that the most common theory is that the universe came to life by itself, and after that, evolved life on Earth started to appear little by little. This material-based view entails the idea that time and materials are the only prerequisites needed in making something possible – the possibility of a Creator is not even considered.

   However, the essential point is that the universe must have had a beginning and that it cannot be eternal and infinitely old. Even the theories of different scientists indicate this. When they speak about the “big bang,” the birth of galaxies, stars, the solar system and the Earth, they presume that they must have had their beginnings. They are aware of the fact that they have not always been around, even though they do not believe in a special process of Creation. They do not take God into account, but base their theories however on the fact that everything began at once.   

   Furthermore, we can also see in practice that there has been a very first special moment. The so-called second main rule of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is going towards a heat death – towards a condition in which all differences in temperatures have disappeared and in which the amount of useful energy will decrease and finally expire. In principle, this decrease in energy can be compared with wood burning in a campfire. When the wood has been burned, it cannot be used again – it becomes useless. It indicates that the amount of useful energy decreases all the time:

 

Energy does not really seem to disappear. The problem, however, is that it is changing gradually into such a form where it can no longer be used. The whole universe is traveling towards a heat death. The present universe and all materials and energy therein are being dilapidated into heat energy that will eventually fill the entire universe. When this happens, nothing can take place. (1)

 

The facts that there still are differences in temperatures around the world, that the Sun and the stars are shining, and that there are still energy reserves inside the Earth only show that the universe is not everlasting and that it has not always been in the same condition. If the Sun and the stars were old enough, the temperature would be the same everywhere and we could not see any motion caused by temperature differences. It would be equally cold everywhere and the stars would have died out. But now it is not so.

  The conclusion that can be drawn from the previous information is that at some point in the past there must have been a day and a moment when everything came into being. There must have been a moment when the clock ticking towards a heat death started, and a moment when everything began. It is the only possibility. Otherwise, we would have to reject the second main rule of thermodynamics.

   The next citations bring out the same issue. They indicate, how the theory concerning heat forces us either to believe that the world has been created at a certain moment, or that the laws of nature have been different at an earlier point in time

 

Arthur Eddington (an English astrophysicist in the 1930’s): When we go back in time, we will come to a more and more organised world. Finally, we will come to a moment where all materials and energy are as organised as can be. We cannot go beyond this point. We have come to a point in time and space that cannot be crossed, and that can only be described by the word "beginning" (...) To me, it is completely natural to accept the conclusion that the current natural science offers for the future – the heat death of the universe. (2)

 

William Jevons (an English philosopher in the 1870s): We cannot trace the heat history of the universe too far into the past. At some point, we will get impossible results referring to such heat distributions, which cannot, according to the laws of nature, come from any preceding distribution. (...) The theory concerning heat forces us either to believe that the world has been created at a certain moment, or that the laws of nature have been different at an earlier point in time. (3)

 

life must also have a beginning. It was noted that the universe has a beginning, and the same goes for life – it too must have a beginning. There must have been a moment when life, which is quite a brittle thing and requires conditions of a very certain type, began. At least, nothing indicates that it has been eternally on the Earth.

  The most major reason for the limited existence of life is, of course, the limited existence of the Sun. As the Sun cannot have always been around supplying warmth and light for the Earth, there cannot have been any life either (The second main rule of thermodynamics places restrictions for the existence of the Sun. The Sun is like wood burning in a campfire. It only burns for a certain time, and then it becomes cold and dark.). Without the Sun, the temperature would be almost -273 degrees Celsius, it would be dark and all the water would be frozen – the conditions would be impossible for life. No known form of life could thrive under these conditions: life would be impossible.

  Therefore, the conclusion is that just as the Sun cannot have always been around supplying warmth for the Earth, there cannot have been any life, either. The issue is so simple that it should awaken us. It also indicates that there must have been a moment when life came to be on the Earth. Scientists do not believe in the Creation but even if it is not taken into account, life still must have begun at some point. Otherwise, we would have to yet again reject the second main rule of thermodynamics.

   The next quote speaks to the same subject. It indicates that people do, indeed, believe in the beginning of life but how the same issue is still unclear to scientists. These kinds of conclusions are possible because people do not want to admit God’s share in the Creation.

 

Andy Knoll, a Professor of the University of Harvard: “As we try to compile a summary of what we know about the deep history of life on Earth, the origin of life and phases of its forming which led to the biology that can be seen around us now, we have to admit that it is in the dark. We do not know how life began on this planet. We do not know exactly when it began and under what conditions.” (4)

 

 

 

2. Was there a Big Bang?

 

As we study how the universe begun, clearly the most common view nowadays is the so-called Big Bang theory that is also regarded as the standard theory. This theory is based on the idea that in the beginning, perhaps about 15 billion years ago, there was no universe as we perceive it: in other words, back then there were no stars, galaxies or any other celestial bodies – and, of course, no life. Everything was completely different from the current day and age.

  It is believed that at this starting point, there were the materials now existing in the entire universe, condensed into one single point – a point that was perhaps the size of a pinhead (this idea is often expressed in the writings of firm believers in this theory). Neither material nor space existed outside of this tiny point.

  Then, quite suddenly, something unexpected took place. The so-called Big Bang occurred and caused all the material to be hurled to every direction in space. The result was that there was no longer a starting point: instead, the gas from the point started to spread and inhabit ever-increasing space, until it started to condense at some points. It is generally thought that galaxies, stars, and other celestial bodies were then born from these condensations, until finally the universe as we know was born.

 

IS THE THEORY SATISFACTORY? When reading some publications, one can easily get the idea that the Big Bang theory is a fact that has been proven to be true and there is no reason to doubt it. Among scientists and in textbooks, it is clearly regarded as the best model of how everything has begun.

   However, there are problems with the Big Bang theory. Some researchers have pointed them out and noted that the theory is by no means undisputed. They have understood that science is not able to explain the beginning of the universe. It is problematic because it cannot be experimentally proven, and it is also impossible because we cannot go back to the past. The Big Bang is only an unproven theory that is needed mainly because people do not want to believe in God’s Creation. The fact that the whole theory is on very shaky ground can be seen in the following quotes:

 

How did the universe finally come into existence? What happened precisely at the moment zero?

  We do not know. The universe about to be born – whose all material, radiation, and space would have fit inside the full stop ending this sentence – was so extremely hot and dense that it cannot be described by any theory of physics. Physicists cannot tell anything about the world until at the stage when it was a few centimetres in size and a billionth billionth billionth billionth part of a second old.

  We can only try and guess as comes to the events occurring before that. Some think that the universe was created, while others think that it was a question of a former space that had collapsed and now yet again began to enlarge. Yet others think that the universe came into existence from nothing. (5)

 

We cannot claim that science has solved the mystery of the universe once and for all. Far from it. So far, there are relatively few observations supporting the Big Bang theory, although some of them are very convincing. The majority of the researchers of the field regard the Big Bang theory as the model that can best explain these observations. In any case, we have not found a theory that could describe the first split seconds of the universe. We do not know how particles act and what kind of form the force of gravity gets when the particles have been packed into an extremely small space under enormous heat. The Big Bang is not a test that we could reproduce. (6)

 

New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)

 

As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)

 

There has been considerably little discussion about the possibility of the Big Bang theory… many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelisti [nobelist] H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)

 

Does THE red shift prove EXPANSION? Concerning the Big Bang and expansion, it is an issue that we cannot detect with the naked eye or even with a telescope, no matter how much we look. Revolving and rotary movements of the bodies we can see – at least in the near space – but we cannot see expansion.

   Instead, some have thought that the best piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang is red shift, which can be observed in distant stars. It has been thought that when the spectrums of light in distant galaxies and stars move towards the red end of the spectrum, this indicates expansion. Red shift values of these celestial bodies should indicate their escape velocity and distance, so that all bodies are drawing away from us at a velocity proportional to their distance.

  However, using the red shift as evidence for expansion is questionable. It arises, for example, from the following factors:

 

The light of all stars is not red shifted. The first problem with the red shift is that the light of all stars is not red shifted. For example, the Andromeda Galaxy and certain other galaxies show blue shifted light, which means that they should be approaching us. (It has been estimated that the Andromeda Galaxy is approaching us at 300 kilometres a second! On the other hand, the escape velocity of the Virgin Constellation should be 1,200 km/s and that of Quasar PKS 2000 as much as 274,000 km/s. Where do these more than a hundredfold differences come from, if everything began at the same point?) These kinds of exceptions indicate that there may be some other explanation to the red shift values than drawing away from us. Maybe the values have nothing to do with their movements.

 

The values of adjacent galaxies. Another problem with the red shift is that some adjacent galaxies may have completely different red shift values, even though they are in connection with each other and quite close to each other. So, if the red shift value could be really used to tell the distance, there is no way these galaxies could be close to each other: instead, they should be far away from each other. Yet, they are in close proximity of each other. This indicates that the red shift must be caused by some other facts. That is why it has been proposed that these red shifts could be caused, for example, by internal reactions and radiation of stars, which can also be detected from the Earth.

   Because of the same matter some researchers deny the importance of the red shift. They say or doubt it having anything to do with expansion. In fact, the whole Big Bang theory is then without its most important evidence. We should also consider the following statement by Steven Weinberg, in which he states that ”We do not actually observe the galaxies rushing away from us”. To support the Big Bang and expansion, people use discordant red shift observations, which have been criticized by many.

  

I do not want to imply that everyone is of the same opinion regarding the interpretation of the red shift. We do not actually observe the galaxies rushing away from us; the only issue that is sure is that their spectrums have moved towards red. Famous astronomers doubt whether the red shift has anything to do with the Doppler shifts or with the expansion of space. Halton Arp of the Hale Observatory has emphasized that groups of galaxies can be found in space where some galaxies have quite different red shifts; if these groups are really composed of galaxies that are close to each other, they could hardly move at very different velocities. Furthermore, Maarten Schmidt noticed in 1963 that certain kinds of objects resembling stars had enormously high red shifts, up to more than 300 per cent! If these "quasars" are at the distances that can be deducted from their red shifts, they must radiate an extremely large amount of energy in order to continue being so bright. It is also very difficult to measure the correlation between velocity and distance when the objects are really far away. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The Three First Minutes, p. 40)

 

Red shift periodically changing. One peculiarity with some quasars is that their red shift changes periodically – often in the course of one day: sometimes the value is higher, sometimes lower. Why are there changes like these?

If we were to draw a conclusion based on these changing red shift values, the conclusion would be that they are sometimes moving away faster, sometimes slower. However, this phenomenon has never been found in the universe. It is more probable, therefore, that changing red shift values are due to internal reactions or unknown physical phenomena and not any escaping motion, as far as these quasars are concerned. The next citation refers to this. These kinds of findings, as well as the former findings, suggest that it is questionable to associate red shift values with expansion and the Big Bang:

 

Even though the Big Bang theory has thus been supported by solid evidence, the issue cannot be regarded as solved yet, because the interpretation of red shift observation that is important from the point of view of the theory has been questioned, and the doubts have been confirmed by some recent observations. Perhaps the red shift is not caused by escaping radiation sources, but by some physical phenomena that are still unknown. This view can be justified most of all by observations made of the so-called quasars. In these objects, which were regarded as distant, quickly drawing away, and large material formations because of their red shift, quick variations were noted in the intensity of radiation. Actions of this kind are very strange, because it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that could affect those formations that are at least the size of the Milky Way in a couple of months. As comes to galaxies, the scale of their red shifts proved to be dependent on their type or position among all galaxies. Furthermore, cases were found in which objects with small and big red shifts seemed to be in physical connection, close to each other. (Antti Jännes, Koululaisen uusi tietosanakirja, p. 1012)

 

What caused it? One important question regarding the Big Bang is what caused it? What started it?

  If it is assumed that the state before the Big Bang was static and stable, what was it then that caused the “bang” or explosion? (the state would have to have been stable, because if there had been differences in temperatures and motion, they would have used up all the useful energy a long time before the supposed Big Bang took place)

  This is a good question, because if the state of an object or material has been immobile, static, and permanent throughout time, we cannot expect it to all of a sudden, by itself, turn into an orb, for example. This certainly would not take place: instead, everything would remain as it is.

  The law of stability also proves the unchanged state; according to it, if the state of an object is to be changed, an outside power is always needed – the change will never take place by itself. This means that, for example, a stone on the ground will never start to move by itself: instead, it will remain where it is until some outside force moves it – for example, if someone lifts up the stone and throws it away. In the same way, a snow-capped area can never start to melt away by itself, but warmth is needed to start the process. Only when the Sun starts shining and warming it, will the snow start to melt, otherwise it would remain eternally unchanged. There are many more similar examples.

  Martin Rees discusses this problem in the beginning in his book Avaruuden avainluvut (p. 109, 192) and how difficult it is to explain the supposed beginning of the Big Bang. He states that there is no explanation for it, because we do not know how it started (assuming that the Big Bang actually occurred, of course):

 

Even though the view of the beginning of the universe is logical, a few points still remain unexplained. The most notable of these is that this model does not give any explanation as to why the universe started to expand. (...) Instead, the model only describes what took place after the Big Bang, and does not mention how it started.

 

What annulled gravity? As regards the original state of the Big Bang it has been presented that “all material was once condensed into one point only” and that “the universe in its original state was super dense and hot – perhaps something like what in physics is called singularity or a point with extreme density” (the text in quotes is from Tieteen maailma: Maailmankaikkeus, “Encyclopedia of the Earth” p. 105, 106). In the same way, it has been explained that the original state of the Big Bang is similar to black holes, the only difference being that the former concerned the whole material of the universe, while the latter is only a local state. Both are presumed to be states in which density and the force of gravity are so enormous that no other power can conquer the force of gravity (for example Stephen W. Hawking, Ajan lyhyt historia, p. 62, 80). Escaping even at the speed of light, which is considered the fastest speed possible, would not have helped either, because the force of gravity would have prevented it, too. The next example of black holes refers to this:

 

Nothing can escape from inside of such a surface, not even light. Time and space have been twisted so much inside the surface that light rays unavoidably turn back. Getting out of a black hole is as impossible as traveling through time. (Martin Rees, Avaruuden avainluvut, p. 66)

 

A good question based on the previous passage is: what caused the explosion and expansion? If the force of gravity has prevented escape (= in other words, explosion), no explosion and expansion could even have occurred. This would have been impossible, because the very force of gravity that had shrunk all material into one point cannot suddenly change and become invalid.

  Of course, there have been attempts to explain this by cosmic repulsion, for instance, but if all material had been condensed together because of the force of gravity so that no other power could conquer it, how then could the same force of gravity suddenly cease to function completely? The very physical laws that have shrunk the material into a tiny point cannot suddenly become invalid. If we were not to take this into account, we would in essence be claiming that these physical laws have no significance, even though they affect our daily lives. Such is not worth to take into consideration, if it is a question of real science:

 

Some researchers speak willingly about ”a wrong vacuum” that was in the beginning, and think that they can, in this way, explain the origin of energy and material by means of a so-called “inflation model”. This is a mathematical specimen of skill, and for it to be true, it would require changing of gravity into repulsion during “the first 10-32 seconds”. (7)

 

All from one point? The Big Bang theory entails that all material had in the beginning condensed into this one place, the volume of which was perhaps only the size of a pinhead, until the explosion took place. The next quote describes this:

 

All material that we know to be in billions of galaxies was pressed to a point the size of a pinhead. Our own Milky Way was smaller than an atom inside this pinhead. (8)

 

But what does common sense say? If we were to assume that a new universe like the present one could be born from a particle the size of a stone chip how many would believe it? How many ordinary men could deem it possible?

   So when you ask an ordinary person how possible it is that a new universe like the present one could be born from, for example, an ordinary chip of a stone (in the Big Bang theory, it is supposed that everything came into being from a pin-sized space) what would he answer?

 

- Approximately one hundred billion galaxies with one hundred billion stars in each

- Mountains

- Seas, lakes, and rivers, in which we can swim and fish

- Mankind

- Barking dogs

- Twittering birds

- Whining mosquitoes

- Our senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste

- Feelings, such as love, grief, anger, fear, pleasure

- Sun that sends out just right amount of warmth

- Rain

- Metals that can be used for shipbuilding

- Apples, strawberries, blueberries, peas

- Cuttlefish, whales, kangaroos, lions, hippos, cheetahs, crocodiles, ostriches, sheep, eagles, bats, butterflies, ants

- Giant sequoias and other beautiful trees and flowers

 

What would the plain man answer and how reasonable would he consider the whole issue when holding a chip of stone in his hand? Is it not likely that his answer would be something to the effect: “Don’t be crazy, that’s just an impossible idea! Such a universe cannot be born from a small stone. How could anyone believe in such foolishness?”

   Thus, quite a lot of faith is required to believe that all life, the diversity of nature and the whole current universe was born from this small point, the size of a pinhead. This is a real oddity. Generally, an explosion does not lead to any order, and if it we assume that all the things around us and the celestial bodies have come into being from one point, it is one of the greatest foolishnesses in the history of science.

 

 

 

3. The birth of galaxies and stars

  

If and when the Big Bang took place, the next thing to explain is how the galaxies and stars came into existence.

  Usually, it is thought that the explosion (the Big Bang) created hydrogen gas, which spread into space. Then this hydrogen gas suddenly started to condense into galaxies and stars (although in a slow process). This was possible because of small condensations that are believed to have been evenly distributed after the Big Bang. It has been estimated that this process of condensation of gas and dust took place over millions of years, until our existing galaxies and stars were born.

 

IS THE THEORY SATISFACTORY? When considering the birth of galaxies and stars we might get the impression from some publications that this mystery has been solved. We would get the same impression about the Big Bang. It has been implied that it is a proven fact that we should not doubt; only believe. Many people really think that the celestial bodies came into being in this way.

   However, this is where scientists struggle. They do not have a clear understanding of the initial stages, which is natural, of course, as no one was there to witness these events. The birth of celestial bodies still remains a mystery, despite people claiming otherwise. The birth of galaxies is considered especially problematic. There is no proper evidence for it:

 

I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)

 

It is almost certainly true that this is exactly how stars are created from the sparse condensations of gas between the stars. We can hope that the same would take place in the whole universe and thus, the formation of galaxies would begin. However, there is a huge problem here – this does not take place. (…) We need better evidence based on observations regarding how galaxies and large structures of the universe were born. At this point, it is not yet possible to make such observations regarding ordinary galaxies. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 99,109)

 

Properties of gas. When considering how galaxies and stars came into being the first problem we hit is that, if the Big Bang did throw hydrogen into space, it seems unlikely that this gas suddenly ceased its expansion and began to condense into galaxies and stars. Through physics we know that gas always expands to fill any given space. This means that hydrogen would have continued to spread further into space. It would have made its way farther and farther into space; no orb could have been formed. This would have been impossible. Instead all matter should have been evenly spread into space. This is one of the problems that challenge the theory.

  Some researchers have tried to solve this problem by proposing that matter condensations and disturbances took place at some point after the Big Bang. However, this raises another big problem: nobody has been able to properly explain how these condensations were formed.

 

A major problem, however, is how did everything come into being? How did the gas from which galaxies were born initially accumulate to start the birth process of stars and the large cosmic cycle? (…) Therefore, we must find physical mechanisms that bring about condensations within the homogenous material of the universe. This seems quite easy but as a matter of fact leads to problems of a very profound nature. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 93)

 

Slim evidence of the birth of galaxies and stars. As regards the birth of galaxies and stars, it has been suggested that only enough gas in one place is needed for the galaxies and stars to come into being by themselves. It has also been suggested that in some fog clouds such as in the constellation of Orion stars are born all the time.

  In response one might state that, generally speaking, we cannot be sure whether some fog clouds are accumulating or dispersing. A person's lifetime is usually not long enough to observe these phenomena. Therefore, it is possible that when we see a new star it might simply have been out of sight, obscured behind fog clouds all the time, and is only now visible because the orbs are revolving, or because the fog has dispersed and exposed it. This, then, is not necessarily a new star; the star might just be "coming into view."

  If the emergence of galaxies and stars is so simple, where is the evidence? Since it has been estimated that there are a hundred billion galaxies in the sky, and a hundred billion stars in each, and if we divide this by 10 billion (the estimated age of the universe is 10-15 billion years), it would mean that 10 new galaxies and 1,000 billion new stars would have to be born every year! This huge number of new stars and galaxies should be detectable somehow. Why can’t we detect it?

  Detection should not even be difficult because scientists believe that they can only see the past of the outer space. Thus, we would only need to look at different distances between one light year and 10-­­15 billion light years – so there would be many alternatives – and we would surely see orbs forming. Why can’t we detect this?

 

The birth of revolving and rotary movements is a mystery. If in the beginning there was only centrifugal motion caused by the Big Bang, how could this motion suddenly change into revolving, rotary movements that can be observed everywhere in space? No revolving or rotary motion can begin without the influence of another force. What caused these new directions of movement?

  Assuming that the Big Bang really happened, it would have caused motion in only one direction: away from the source of the explosion. No revolving and rotary movement could have been created; instead, everything would have moved directly away from the starting point. A good question to ask is, how did these motions come into existence? They could not have started by themselves; this goes against all the known laws of physics. Why are these movements found and observed everywhere in space? These questions show how shaky is the ground upon which is built this theory of the birth of the universe.

 

 

 

4. The birth of the solar system and Earth

 

 As regards the birth of the solar system and the Earth, the most common theory is that in the beginning, there was only one rotating cloud of gas and dust from which the Sun and planets gradually began to form.

   As this cloud rotated at a great velocity, only its central part stayed in place, and from it the Sun was formed; through collisions and mergers, the separate parts began to form into larger pieces until, finally, they became planets. It is believed that the whole solar system and the Earth came into existence from this one gas-dust cloud.

 

IS THE THEORY SATISFACTORY? When we start to study the possibility that the solar system and the Earth came into being in the way described above, we must note that there are many problems with the theory. In fact, the problems are so huge that according to some researchers, the whole solar system should not even exist. This suggests that the theory of their birth cannot rest on a firm foundation:

 

Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)

 

All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)

 

Rotation speed. One problem concerns the speed of rotation. If the Sun and the planets actually came into being in the above-mentioned manner, the rotation speed of the original gas cloud should have been a lot greater than the Sun's current rotation speed. As the rotation speed now is approximately 2 km/s, the original rotation speed should have been about 1,000 km/s. Why is the speed nowadays so low, only 1/500 of the supposed original value? What has caused the speed to diminish so enormously? Jim Brooks has explained this problem in the following way:

 

The largest difficulty with this theory has to do with the impulse moment of the planets and the Sun. It seems that the primeval nebula has not been able to rotate quickly enough for the rings to come loose. According to mathematical laws, the total impulse moment of the solar system has remained the same in all of its development stages. Should the known total impulse moment fall completely to the Sun, the Sun would rotate about fifty times faster around its axis than at present, in other words, one circuit in half a day. As a consequence, the centrifugal force at the Sun's equator would increase. This would reduce the Sun's force of gravity only by 5%, and so the rings could not come loose. So, our calculations imply that the centrifugal force could not have been able to hurl the planets from the Sun into the outer space. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä / Origins of Life, p. 53)

 

Another problem with the rotation speed is that if the rotation thrust the planets away from the Sun, why does the Sun revolve slower than the planets (for example, the Earth revolves around its axis over 25 times faster than the Sun)? Why does the Sun revolve slower than the planets, even though it should be revolving much faster?

   Spinning-top tests indicate that small objects that are thrust away lose their velocity much faster than the spinning-top itself. In other words, the spinning-top that is still rotating retains a greater velocity than the objects that have been thrust away. Why is it that the rotation speeds between the Sun and the planets are quite the opposite to what we should expect? What has slowed the Sun's rotation speed so considerably compared to the planets?

 

Distances. The second problem is the distance of planets from the Sun. Since the diameter of the Sun is now about 1.4 million kilometers and the initial cloud was only 2–3 times larger, we can pose the question of how, when studying these figures, can the planets be so far away from the Sun? The Earth is about 150 million kilometers away from the Sun, and Pluto almost forty times further away or a distance of about 5,900 million kilometers, which is over 4,000 times the Sun's diameter. These figures are huge. How could these objects have been thrown so far away from the vicinity of the Sun's gravity if in the beginning they really were knit so tightly together? What threw them so far, when the Sun’s own rotation speed is now only 2 km/s?

 

Composition and atmospheres of planets. The greatest problem with the birth of the solar system is connected with the different composition of the Sun, planets and moons. If they really had been created from the same gas cloud, they should also have similar compositions, which is not the case. The following observations reflect some of the differences between them. They suggest the size and severity of problems that arise if we stick with the current theories:

 

- 99 per cent of the Sun consists of light elements, i.e., hydrogen and helium, but the Earth has only about one percent of these elements, and it is composed of 99 percent heavy elements. What could be the cause of such broad differences if the Sun and the Earth originate from the same initial nebula? Other inner planets’ composition is also different to the Sun, which poses another similar issue. These kinds of dissimilarities are difficult to explain with one initial nebula.

- There are such huge differences in composition of the Earth and its moon and the other inner planets that it is difficult to think that their origin could be the same and they could have been born from the same initial cloud.

- There are enormous differences between the Earth and the large outer planets and their moons. The composition of the Earth is totally different than that of these outer planets, which are composed of light elements.

- There is plenty of water on Earth, but the other planets are almost completely devoid of water.

- The atmospheres notably differ from each another. There are at least the following differences:

- Earth: 78% nitrogen, approximately 21% oxygen plus argon and other gases.

- Venus: 97% carbon dioxide, 2% nitrogen and less than 1% water vapor 

- Mars: 95% carbon dioxide, the rest nitrogen and argon

- Jupiter: Approximately 82% hydrogen and 17% helium

 

Movements. If we propose that the planets and moons have the same origin, then their movements should also be similar. All of them should rotate approximately to the same direction, since they have all come into existence from the same rotation.

   However, this is not the case. As one studies the movements of these celestial bodies, one finds that many of them are rotating in exactly the opposite way as one could expect. These differences would certainly not be possible if they really had the same origin. Here are some differences:

 

- Venus rotates around its axis to the opposite direction than the other planets.

- Four of Jupiter's moons, one of Uranus' moons, and Neptune's second moon or the large Triton revolve around their mother planet to the opposite direction than the other moons.

- The planet Uranus is also an exception; its axis is almost on track level, while the axes of the other planets are nearly perpendicular to their track level.

 

 

 

5. The birth of life

 

One axiom of the theory of evolution is that life was born from lifeless material. It has been assumed that this could have taken place by itself, as long as conditions were just right. Usually, these conditions refer to an atmosphere that included hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but not the most important agent for us, namely free oxygen. Secondly, different kinds of radiation and light should have occurred in this atmosphere – causing chemical changes that then created the agents in question: amino acids. This subject and the chemical engineering of amino acids under laboratory conditions are described in a school biology textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 172). Also, the two quotes below indicate that it has been impossible to experimentally prove spontaneous generation and that it clearly goes against practical observations:

 

In the beginning, the atmosphere of the Earth contained, in addition to water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane gases. Since there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, the ozone layer did not protect the Earth. Therefore, the ultraviolet rays of the Sun were able to freely penetrate the surface of the Earth. Rain washed ingredients from the mainland into the seas making them salty.

   (...) The formation of organic material from simple materials has also been experimentally proven. In these experiments, electric discharges were conducted into a closed vessel containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. Many organic materials, like amino acids, were obtained as a result.

 

The spontaneous generation theory that prevailed in the 1700s suggested that organisms were born from lifeless materials. In the 1860s, Louis Pasteur proved this untrue. According to the present view, spontaneous generation has indeed happened, but apparently only once. (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 172)

 

It has been impossible to produce life in a laboratory. However, this has been attempted by man only for some decades. Nature had hundreds of millions of years of time and innumerable warm puddles on the empty surface of the globe as the testing grounds. It was enough that life began in one puddle. From there, it spread onto every part of the globe. (Heikki Oja, Polaris, p. 144)

 

ARE THE THEORIES SATISFACTORY? As we start to study the mystery of the birth of life, we must note that the issue is not as simple as some publications suggest. Usually, in this area the experiment with birth of life by Miller has been discussed, but, interestingly enough, Stanley Miller took a more cynical approach to the theory later in his life. J. Morgan tells in an interview about Miller’s attitude:

 

He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (9)

 

Nevertheless, our next task is to investigate this field, and we can be certain to encounter insuperable problems. The composition of the atmosphere in the beginning and the formation of proteins are especially problematic:

 

Composition of atmosphere in beginning. As stated, the above-mentioned theory supposes that in the beginning, the atmosphere included hydrogen, ammonia, and methane, but no free oxygen at all, since free oxygen would have prevented the formation of proteins and nipped the reactions in the bud.

   However, when studying this issue further, one finds that it is not very likely, since the following things go against it:

 

Precambrian rocks. One thing speaking against an oxygen-free atmosphere are Precambrian rocks. Many Precambrian rocks that have been determined to be the oldest ones include oxygenated iron minerals, which indicate that there was oxygen already at that stage. The idea that there would have been no oxygen in the atmosphere in the beginning clearly goes against these practical observations. Ken Towe explained the problem:

 

"There is one problem related to the studies of the early Precambrian age. On one hand, it is admitted that there was no gaseous oxygen in the beginning and that life started in such an environment. On the other hand, many Precambrian rocks, including the oldest known layers, include oxygenated iron minerals. Therefore, at the time they were formed, there was free oxygen. Where did it come from?" (p. 115, Jim Brooks Näin alkoi elämä / Origins of Life)

 

Was the composition the opposite of what it is now? The theory presented above also includes an idea that the composition of the first atmosphere was just the opposite of what it is now; in the beginning, there was no oxygen but there were hydrogen, methane, and ammonia, while the current atmosphere is the opposite of this. (The current atmosphere contains 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon and 0.1% other inert gases and carbon dioxide.)

   The radical change of the atmosphere is indeed difficult to prove in practice. It is based only on the supposition that spontaneous generation required an oxygen-free atmosphere, because otherwise amino acids could not have been formed. There is no other reason to this kind of a supposition and it is not supported by practical observations. This is about what we want to believe, and not about what can really be known.

 

Gases lighter than oxygen. The primitive atmosphere is believed to have contained gases lighter than oxygen, but not oxygen, according to one assumption. This speculation feels unreasonable, however. Why should hydrogen have remained in the atmosphere of the Earth instead of oxygen, because – being the lightest of all gases – it would be the first one to escape into outer space? Hydrogen would most likely have escaped right away into space, since the Earth is believed to have been hot and its crust partly molten. The hotter it is, the easier it is for gases to escape. The movement of a gas intensifies as heat rises. An atmosphere containing hydrogen would probably not have remained intact for long (it has been thought that this kind of an atmosphere prevailed on the Earth for millions of years) and the amino acids would not even have had time to form.

 

Is oxygen dependent on photosynthesis? Generally, it is supposed that oxygen appeared on the Earth because of photosynthesis, which generated the oxygen. It has been thought that green plants caused the oxygen level of the atmosphere to increase.

   However, this is not necessarily true: instead, some of the oxygen may have been created by the ultraviolet light of the Sun that disperses water and produces oxygen and ozone. It would rather have been quite a special combination if there had been no free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere, since there must have been oxygen together with hydrogen as water and water vapor. This selective occurrence hardly seems possible. Therefore, oxygen must have already been present then.

  Another piece of evidence contradicting the idea that the atmosphere of the Earth was oxygen-free is the oxygen found from Mars. The plasma spectrometer Aspera, sent to Mars to take tests, measured that as much as 3.5 tons of oxygen is carried every hour by solar winds from the gas perimeter of Mars into space. This proves that the existence of oxygen is in no way dependent on organic activity, i.e., on photosynthesis. It also proves that there could have been free oxygen on Earth in its early stages as well.

 

Formation of proteins is another problem. If we, nevertheless, assume that amino acids were formed in an oxygen-free atmosphere and survived the ultraviolet radiation by penetrating water – as has been hypothesized – we come across a whole new set of difficulties. (Getting into water was necessary because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere and thus no protective ozone layer. Without ozone the ultraviolet radiation would have quickly destroyed the newborn amino acids. This creates a considerable problem: amino acids could not have been formed in an oxygenous atmosphere, and in an oxygen-free atmosphere they would have been immediately destroyed. Both alternatives – an oxygenous and an oxygen-free atmosphere – would have been detrimental to amino acids.) 

   The difficulty is: how could amino acids have combined with proteins in water? If there were a surplus of water, it would not have assisted the formation of proteins; instead, quite the contrary would have occurred. It would have caused the already formed combinations to return back to their structural elements. Such reactions are always dependent on the prevailing circumstances and because of the water surplus, they would only have moved backwards, i.e., back to their original state of amino acids, and not forward at all. The compounds would not even have been created:

 

According to the sea hypothesis, the chemical evolution and the birth of life occurred in sea or in a pond. However, under these conditions the spontaneous birth of macro molecules required for the birth of life is in no way possible. Let us imagine the birth of a large protein molecule in water. As the amino acids are joined together by a peptide bond, one water molecule is always released. The bigger the polypeptides created, the more water gathers to the right side of the reaction equation. At least according to the present existing laws of chemistry and physics, the reaction will always reverse if there is enough water, i.e., spontaneous hydrolysis of the created molecules will occur. Someone should continuously remove water to prevent the protein from falling to pieces. (Mikko Tuuliranta, Evoluutio – tieteen harha-askel?, p. 18)

 

Because a peptide bond is thermodynamically unstable in an aqueous solution, the formed proteinoid would be extremely prone to hydrolytic decomposition in the warm seas that prevailed in the beginning. Thus, no single protenoid could have been preserved for a long time. This fact causes a fundamental problem. (Lehninger A.L., Biochemistry, p. 1041, Worth Publishers, Inc., [1975])

 

No life. If the formation of proteins in water was possible in spite of everything, more problems were still to come: even though the protein molecules had turned into amino acids, the molecules would still have lacked whatever it was that made them alive. It is a question of a more refined form of a dead material; just as iron, plastic, and rubber can be formed into a car, but there is no life in this car. In the same way, a dead body has just the right materials and right structures, but there is no life in it. The right materials and structures, therefore, would hardly assist us in solving the puzzle of life. Correct materials alone cannot bring about life:

 

And we have not still touched the problem itself: the birth of life. Egg protein is not life; it is only one of the materials that form a living organism. Even if we had an entire Earth full of egg protein, we still would be no closer to the solution. We can prove that life creates and uses egg protein, but there is not a single shred of evidence that egg protein creates life. (Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas [Jakten på apemennesket], p. 41).

 

Imperfect theories. The next comments indicate well how problematic the birth of life is and how the evidence for it is lacking. There is still a big gap between a living and a lifeless material, and the researchers have not made any progress in the matter in the last century. It has been impossible to solve the problem of the birth of life:

 

Paul Davies: “When I began to write this book, I was convinced that science had almost solved the mystery of the birth of life. (…) I have spent one or two years studying this area and now I think that there is an enormous gap in our knowledge. We have, of course, a good idea of the time and place of the birth of life but there is still a long way to go to understanding the series of events. This gap in our understanding is not mere ignorance about some technical details but it is a notable conceptual defect. (…) Many researchers are careful to say publicly that the birth of life is a mystery, although behind closed doors they openly admit to being confused… (10)

 

Andy Knoll, a professor of Harvard University: “As we try to compile a summary of what we know about the deep history of life on Earth, the origin of life and phases of its forming which led to the biology that can be seen around us now, we have to admit that it is in the dark. We do not know how life began on this planet. We do not know exactly when it began and under what conditions.” (11)

 

 

 

                                                               

REFERENCES:

 

1. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu genesis, p. 25

2. John D. Barrow : Maailmankaikkeuden alku, p. 37

3. Same, s. 36-37

4. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. may 2004,  cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

5. Heikki Oja: Polaris, p.128,129

6. Kari Enqvist and Jukka Maalampi: Tyhjästä syntynyt, p. 14

7. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 24

8. Joseph Silk in his book "Big Bang"

9. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

10. Paul Davies: Viides ihme, 1999, p. 14,15

11. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. may 2004,  cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

 

 

 

More on this topic:

Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory.

Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life

 

 

  

 

Grap to eternal life!

 

More on this topic:

Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory.

Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?