True Life Values- Tommy´s Window
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Dr. Werner Gitt: quotation about information
From his book: In the Beginning Was Information!
So what does that mean? It means that there is no known law of nature, no known process, no know sequence of events which can cause the information in the DNA molecule to originate by itself. Our every day experiments with information lead us to conclude that information always comes from a source, an intelligent mind. Therefore, the information we find in the DNA molecule must come from an Intelligent Designer and not random chance activity. Intelligent Mind or Intelligent Design is the best answer to the DNA enigma. Dennis Edwards
Link
Tesouros das Trevas- portugues
Tesouros das Trevas
Jesus, falando em profecia
Aqui vem, a nuvem negra, às vezes resultante de um acontecimento desagradável, outras quando a mesmice da vida parece insuportável. Às vezes ela paira sobre nós sem um motivo aparente. Angústia. Desespero. Falta de esperança. Depressão. Esses sentimentos chegam sutilmente como uma névoa que pode se desvanecer ou dominar o ambiente. Às vezes está enevoado, nublado e cinza, outras vezes fica denso, escuro. Pode girar e bater e parece que você se sente sugado para um profundo e escuro poço do qual pode nunca mais conseguir sair para respirar.
Quando se sente avassalado pela situação, derrotado, e acha que nem adianta ter esperança ou tentar; quando lhe parece que nem fé, oração ou atitude positiva vão adiantar, pense no sol se pondo no final do dia. Mesmo que não consiga vê-lo, e ficará mesmo um tempo sem vê-lo, ele continua lá, aquecendo a terra, dando vida. E vai nascer de novo. No caso da esperança é a mesma coisa. Sempre existe esperança. Às vezes fica oculta pelas nuvens do desespero, mas nunca deve ser perdida.
Fé em Mim é a única fonte substancial de esperança, a qual é o segredo para o espÃrito humano conseguir encontrar a felicidade. Não existe espaço pequeno demais para a alma crescer, nem célula escura demais que impeça o espÃrito de florescer. E para você, Meu filho, sempre haverá um raio de luz, um raio de esperança brilhando sobre você. Às vezes, não consegue vê-lo porque está olhando muito para baixo. Outras vezes porque está escuro, porque nuvens negras pairam e o encobrem. Mas está sempre lá, e pode ter certeza que o verá novamente.
Pode aprender a discernir quando as nuvens negras se aproximam, e impedi-las, com o auxÃlio do Meu EspÃrito e poder. Sempre vão passar por cima, lançando sua sombra, mas não precisam necessariamente envolvê-lo ou dominá-lo. Se clamar a Mim por ajuda, consolo, esperança e fé, conseguirá afugentar as nuvens negras da depressão e da angústia. Não o deixarei sem conforto, virei para você.[1]
Apegue-se a Mim. Apegue-se à fé e à esperança. Não solte, ou será dominado pelas trevas, e mesmo que se sinta assim, lembre-se que o sol nasce todas as manhãs, e a esperança sempre retornará ao coração que a busca.[2]
+
Existe um poder que pode erguê-lo, encorajá-lo, lhe dar uma perspectiva melhor da vida e é mais forte do que todas as forças que tentam puxá-lo para baixo.
O desespero é um poço escuro e profundo que pode engolir a alegria da sua vida. O negativismo é como um Ãmã que o puxa para dentro desse poço. Mas Eu sou mais forte do que qualquer pessoa, mente, coração ou circunstância. Sou a alegria quando tudo ao seu redor é tristeza. Sou a paz quando tudo ao seu redor é temor.
Pense sempre no positivo. Se começar a ter pensamentos negativos, tente revertê-lo para algo positivo. No inÃcio não vai ser fácil, porque quando o negativo o envolve é difÃcil ver algo bom na vida, na sua situação, ou até mesmo no futuro. Imagine-se em uma mina funda e escura, onde a vida parece sem esperança ou vantagens, mas lá nas profundezas dessa caverna encontram-se gemas de grande valor, diamantes, opalas e outras pedras de valor inestimável.
Quando se sentir avassalado pelas trevas e depressão da sua situação, imagine-se como um mineiro que pode escavar no profundo das rochas e encontrar tesouros brilhantes, as coisas positivas. Na BÃblia falei sobre os tesouros das profundezas, “Dar-te-ei os tesouros das trevas, e as riquezas encobertas, para que possas saber que Eu sou o Senhor, o Deus de Israel, que te chama pelo teu nome.”[3]
Perceberá que a sua determinação em extrair alegria da tristeza, felicidade da dor, e pensamentos negativos em pensamentos positivos será o segredo para manter a sanidade mental. Pensamentos positivos são os seus “tesouros das trevas”, as suas “riquezas ocultas em lugares secretos”.
É fácil ser feliz e animado quando tudo vai bem. Quando tem saúde, está na companhia dos que lhe são queridos, e em uma boa situação. Aà não é vitória alguma estar sempre pra cima e positivo. Mas quando consegue ver o positivo mesmo que tudo ao seu redor seja sombrio, quando consegue encontrar diamantes e pedras preciosas nas rochas escuras da sua “mina”, então mostra que tem força de caráter. E torna-se vitorioso quando aprende a transformar as coisas ruins em coisas positivas, a tristeza em alegria, o desespero em esperança, tudo pelo poder dos pensamentos positivos, da fé e do se apoiar em Mim. E não precisará fazer tudo sozinho, porque Eu o ajudarei.[4]
Publicado originalmente em 2006. Atualizado e republicado em maio de 2012.
Tradução Hebe Rondon Flandoli. Revisão Denise Oliveira.
[1] João 14:18.
[2] Temos essa consola̤̣o como ̢ncora da alma, segura e firme, e que penetra at̩ o interior do v̩u. РHebreus 6:19 ECA.
[3] Isaias 45:3 ECA.
[4] Tu, ó Senhor, mantém acesa a minha lâmpada; o Senhor meu Deus transforma as minhas trevas em luz.—Salmo 18:28 ECA.
copyright@thefamilyinternational
Friday, June 15, 2012
How did they build the Great Pyramid?
Article from:
Journal of Creation24(3):60–66
December 2010
Browse this issue
Subscribe to Journal of Creation
Recommended Resources
The Puzzle of Ancient Man
by Donald Chittick
Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian
by William Whiston, AM (Translator)
The Annals of the World
by James Ussher
How did they build the Great Pyramid?—an architect’s proposal
by Trevor Harrisa Many people are fascinated by the pyramids of Egypt. Why were they built? But more challenging—how did they do it? In particular with the Great Pyramid—how did they construct it to the enormous height with such accuracy and precision? By examining the pyramid through modern architectural eyes, assuming the builders had access to a reasonable level of technological skills, a certain solution suggests itself. A detailed analysis shows that such a solution is feasible and constructible, and even referred to within some ancient records.
wikimedia.org: Nina Aldin Thune
Figure 1. The Great Pyramid of Giza, also called the Pyramid of Khufu or the Pyramid of Cheops, is the only remaining wonder of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.
Most theories for the building of the Great Pyramid (figure 1) are derived from an evolutionary view of human history whereby primitive humans developed engineering and building construction by trial and error over many millennia. Consequently, explanations and illustrations of pyramid construction often show a large army of grunting workers hauling huge blocks of stone up large ramps.
A different picture emerges when we assume biblical history. From this perspective the descendants of Noah formed the basis for all the early civilizations. Their advanced architectural forms and technologyshow the intelligence of these people. Examples can be found in the Middle East, China and the Americas.
These descendants inherited sophisticated engineering skills, obviously sufficiently developed in the building of the Ark that survived the Flood, and the Tower of Babel afterward (Genesis 6–9; 11). For example Mizraim, who was a grandson of Noah, was the patriarch of a tribe that settled in Egypt. In Egypt the earliest structures do exhibit experimentation, the development of craft skills and evidence of metallurgical processes. An iron plate (confirmed by chemical analysis in 1989) was found embedded in the Great Pyramid in 1836 by an assistant of explorer Colonel Vyse.1
The Great Pyramid
Most commentators acknowledge that the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, also called the Pyramid of Khufu (or Cheops), demonstrates a massive increase in sophistication of design and complexity of construction. It is also one of the most accurately aligned structures to true polar north. The reason for this earlier complexity has been difficult to explain from the traditional evolutionary perspective.
The Great Pyramid is a high point in construction techniques. The Pyramid of Khafre adjacent, built later, is a close but very poor copy, and most subsequent pyramids are even more inferior. Thus pyramid construction degenerated with time rather than improved, pointing to a devolution of design and construction techniques.
The Great Pyramid is the only one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World that has survived to this day. It is the most measured and surveyed building in the world and has generated the most debate about its original measurements and their meaning. No evidence has been found of Egyptian hieroglyphs, idols or coffin remains in the structure. However there are some graffiti examples in some parts of the upper chambers. It is accepted by most to have been built in the 4th Dynasty reign of Pharaoh Khufu.2 However there is debate about the dating of this dynasty and whether he is the main instigator.
The height and volume
The Great Pyramid currently measures 138 m high which is the equivalent of a 46 storey building. It was the tallest structure that humans had erected until the building of the Lincoln Cathedral spire (UK) at 160 m in AD 1311 (over 3,500 years later).
It is just under half the height of the Eiffel Tower (300 m to its roof) built in 1888. It is close to half the height of Australia’s 3 highest structures: Sydney’s Centre-point Tower (305 m), Melbourne’s Eureka Tower (297 m) and Gold Coast Q1 building (275 m). However, it would take exactly 6 Great Pyramids to reach the top of the current tallest building, Burj Khalifa (Dubai Tower), in the Middle East, which is 828 m high and was built in 2008.
The volume of the Pyramid would fill the Empire State Building in New York 2.5 times.
The volume of the Pyramid would fill the Empire State Building in New York 2.5 times.
Engineering requirements in construction
Rather than speculating on how such a great structure could have been built using primitive techniques, it is proposed how an intelligent ancient architect could design and build the structure with the technology of that era. There are a number of technical requirements for any proposal for the building of the Great Pyramid. These include:
A regular and fast rate for the delivery and placement of the estimated 2,300,000 stone blocks. The accepted time frame of construction is between 20–30 years. Some have proposed shorter periods with a required delivery rate of 3 stones per minute.
The 203 courses of masonry must be accurately leveled and the level must be maintained to accurate tolerances through the entire construction.
The slope angles of each corner of the pyramid must be accurately measured and the slope must be accurately maintained. Any deviations in slope would have a catastrophic effect as the level of the pyramid rose higher.
The slope face angles on each of the four sides needed to be accurately checked and maintained. This would have been critical for the placement of the limestone casing stones that covered each side.
There is debate about the materials used for the stone blocks. Some advance the idea that they were cast ‘polymer’ concrete (in situ). The conventional understanding is quarried stone. The casing stones and the chamber-forming blocks are large quarried stones. Either way, they represent large volumes of material and these large stone blocks had to be lifted to great heights.
Getting to the top
Photo: Egyptologist David Down
Figure 2. An example of a single stage ramp to the top of the pyramid, an unlikely scenario. This is in the Pharaonic Village in Cairo.
Many different proposals have been suggested to reach the height required. Most of these involve complicated ramps and do not meet the requirements listed above as they cover the critical sight survey lines.
A full ramp to the top at 138 m has a certain appeal, and such a ramp is illustrated in a model in the Egyptian Pharoanic Museum (figure 2). However, a ramp to the full height would be huge in scale and impractical. It would require much more material than the pyramid itself and involve an enormous effort to build and dismantle. It could not be built with sand or gravel as this would spread under its own weight. An engineered ramp of mudbrick would also be massive and not very feasible. Therefore, I have discounted the idea of a ramp to the full height.
The idea of an internal spiral tunnel by French architect J.P. Houdin and supported by archaeologist Bob Brier is another proposal aimed at getting a ramp to the top.3 This suggestion is impractical for many reasons, including the structural requirements of the pyramid. It would greatly weaken the structural integrity of the pyramid due to the massive forces resulting from forming the shape. It would not be practical from a logistical point of view, in that it would be difficult to haul 40- to 60-tonne stone blocks up through such a confined passage. The rate of stone delivery would be too slow with only one path for materials movement.
Figure 3. Site plan of the Giza Plateau showing the Great Pyramid, the Pyramid of Khafre and the Sphinx. The proposed southern construction ramp to the 64-metre level is shown extending from the quarry to the Great Pyramid. (After Romer, ref. 2, p. 14)
I propose that a two stage approach to the construction, that meets the engineering requirements listed above, successfully explains how they got to the top. The first stage involves a construction ramp to a critical level part way up. The second stage involves forming ‘tiered platforms’ in the structure to enable materials to be lifted for the upper levels.
Southern construction ramp—stage 1
It is proposed that the main construction ramp was on the south side of the pyramid (figure 3). The reasons for this include:
A ramp on the southern side would provide the shortest distance from the quarry to the Pyramid site, a key factor for the efficient delivery of such an enormous quantity of stone material. The source of most of the building stones is the large quarry 500 m to the south (figure 3).
Some evidence has been found of remains of a southern ramp.4
The eastern side has remains of a ramp but this was probably for the delivery of the casing stones (as discussed later). It is also the location side of what may be set-out lines for dimensional checking as proposed by John Romer.5
The northern side is discounted because it has the only entrance way into the structure.
Engineering restraints suggest the main ramp reached only part way up the pyramid. It is proposed that the ramp was only to the 64-metre level approximately, which is the level needed to raise the heaviest stones that were placed above the King’s Chamber (approximately 60 tonnes). From an engineering perspective, a ramp built to this level is practical and possible using simple construction materials and techniques such as battered (splayed) mud brick walls. This technique has been found at other pyramid sites but on a lesser scale.
The southern ramp would need to extend 512 m from the quarry to the pyramid, which means the maximum gradient reached at the 64-metre level would only be of 1:8 (64 m in 512 m, figure 4). This gradient is quite acceptable for people and animals to climb. Many modern-day car ramps are constructed to this gradient.
Figure 4. Concept of the dual construction ramp for the Great Pyramid to its maximum ramp height of 64 m.
What kind of ramp?
A ramp that allows for continual adjustment in height for each level is required as the work proceeds. Maintaining a continual rate of delivery of people and materials is a challenge. Given the logistics, a four lane carriageway would be ideal to ensure this. More lanes could be provided at the lower levels.
This structure could have been constructed as a ‘dual ramp’, which would permit a continuous delivery of materials to the pyramid even as the ramp was being built up. The design allows delivery of materials utilizing one side of the ramp while the other side of the ramp was being raised—then vice versa. Thus a continual flow of materials and workers can occur while the ramp structure is raised in tandem.
The building stones could be mounted on metal sleds at the quarry and then carted by animals the whole distance up the ramp, onto the stone platform and close to the required position.
This ramp could be made with materials readily available in the area. Mud bricks made on the banks of the Nile adjacent would be the bulk of the material. On the sides of the ramp they could be chambered (sloped) at a nominal 60 degrees to give stability. The volume as proposed is approximately 760,000 m3.
A working platform
Any large building site needs a large working area. The delivery of materials and amenities for workers must be near the works in progress. With the ramp proposal it allows a very large flat area at the top at each stage to give this function (figure 5).
Figure 5. North-south cross-section of the pyramid illustrating the two-stage construction method with construction ramp to the 64-metre level and stone lifters above. Also shown are some of the internal features of the pyramid, including the subterranean passageway.
As it rises, this platform narrows so it is important to establish the required platform for the second stage of the proposal, which I will discuss later. At 64 m, a working platform of 24 m by 50 m is possible.
Animals do most of the work
This is a key factor in understanding the logic of the proposal. The proposed 64-metre level represents the point below which 80% of the volume of the pyramid had been placed—only 20% of the volume of the pyramid is above it. This statistic was pointed out by John Romer and is an important factor.6 This means that the bulk of the building’s stone can be carted close to the placement area by animals. Humans are needed only for the final positioning.
No grunting, heaving Egyptians would be needed, as shown in many cartoons.
Oxen can haul the massive 60-tonne stones that are found above the King’s chamber. No grunting, heaving Egyptians would be needed, as shown in many cartoons. The animals can also deliver all the stones for the remaining height to this last working platform at the 64-metre level.
The casing stones
An estimated 144,000 limestone casing stones up to 2.4 m thick covered the entire surface of the Great Pyramid to form a continuous smooth polished surface. These casing stones are so precise in placement and jointing that no penetration of the surface was made for 3,000 years. The first recorded modern entry was Al Mamun, the Cairo Caliph who tunneled an entry in AD 832.
The Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a large ramp on the east side. Indeed evidence has been found for the causeway on the eastern side. However, I suggest that this east-side ramp was not the main ramp for building the Pyramid. It is more likely that this ramp was at the end of the delivery road from the harbour to the Pyramid site for the casing stones. These are proven to have come from the other side of the Nile.7 At a later time the east-side ramp may have been utilized as a processional ramp—hence the remains. Herodotus says that this ramp was 10 years in the making which seems a long time for such a modest structure. Ten years would be a better time frame for building a southern ramp for the main construction as proposed.
Figure 6. The core masonry of The Great Pyramid has a distinct hollowing, as much as 94 cm (37 inches) on the north face. It is not normally observable and can only be seen when special lines of sight are taken. In the above illustration (after Tompkins, ref. 7, p. 110), the hollowing of the core masonry is greatly exaggerated to show the effect. A. Pyramid base as actually built. B. Base of core masonry.
Building the courses
The evidence of the few casing stones found at the base of the pyramid is that these stones provided a polished accurate slope face that dovetailed into the course behind. Another subtle feature is that these stones were laid with a slight indent to the face resulting in a ‘crease’—called the apothem—at the centre of each face (figure 6). This fact was discovered by an early aerial photograph by English airman P. Groves in 1940 where shadows picked up the subtle indentation.8
This deviation in the stonework makes sense as it enables accurate checking by sight lines from corner to corner for each course.
The perimeter casing stone course was also rigid with a thin bed of mortar found to join each stone. This course was accurately aligned to control the geometry of the shape. The stones were leveled very accurately to the horizontal which then provided the gauge for the infill stonework behind. With this technique, once the perimeter course is in place it acts as a safety barrier and datum allowing for the rapid infill of the inner core. Work can also be done in different parts of the course level at the same time.
Another factor with working on one course at a time is that portable shade structures can be provided at any part of the building site enabling work to progress in hot conditions for the whole of the year.
Tiers to the top—stage 2
Figure 7. Southern elevation of the Great Pyramid showing the construction ramp with mud brick battered walls at its maximum height.
Figure 8. Variation of the block thickness for each layer of the Great Pyramid from its base to its present summit (after Romer, ref. 2, p. 367).
Above the 64-metre level a different approach would be required, as the size and slope of the ramp would have reached its maximum practicable level (figure 7). The remaining 20% of the blocks for the pyramid would now have to be placed in a steep structure for the rest of the height of 74 m (25 stories). It is important to note that above this level the stones become smaller and lighter (figure 8), which means they could be handled by a different construction technique.
The existing stepped courses of the Pyramid have ledges averaging about 600 mm in width and a height about 700 mm, resulting in an incline of about 51 degrees, which is very unworkable. Even with staggered scaffolding this can be dangerous.
Figure 9. Forming the vertical tiers, central south side only.
Figure 10. Lifting devices with the tiered layers.
Figure 11. Infill of the tiers and placement of the casing stones from the top down.
Therefore, it is proposed that on the southern side only, they created vertical ‘tiers’ with the core masonry with platforms of nominal dimensions 2.4 m wide and 2.8 m high (figure 9). This is a single-storey height that makes it easy for lifting blocks from one level to the next. It provides a safe working area for frames and scaffolds. On that level workers can have amenities, such as toilets, water supply and shade structures.
Lifter devices would be used on each of these level tiers to allow continual delivery of the stones. These lifters could be simple wooden or metal devices using the fulcrum and lever principle (figure 10). A number of prototypes have been developed to demonstrate this. Human operators can lift large stones above a small height. The lifting is only required for each single storey height which makes it safe. The stones could be packed in metal or timber frames for ease of handling. They would be lifted individually and transferred from lifter to lifter until they reached the required level. When they reached their destination working level they would be placed on adjustable metal rails and glided to the required position.
These tiers could be designed to have a number of vertical lifter hoists in a row allowing for multiple rates of delivery for stone. From a technical point of view these tiers could be corbelled to allow the infill stone to be bonded back into the structure on completion.9
Finishing from the top down
I believe the current height of the pyramid is the same as the original, and a pyramidion (pointed capstone) was not constructed. In stage two, the pyramid structure is formed as at the lower levels with the casing stones first and the infill behind, but the vertical tiers in the centre of the southern side prevent the completion of all these courses. However, from the top it is possible to infill these courses from the top down (figure 11).
Once the top has been reached, the southern side tiers can be in-filled from the top down (figure 10). This requires matching courses of masonry and the casing stones placed level by level. No section is more than the nominal single storey (2.8m) in height, which is a safe working height.
A simple method of corbelling often used in masonry work enables the courses to be bonded in layer by layer as illustrated in figures 9, 10 and 11. The only difficulty is maintaining the precision of the casing stones which are placed after the core stones are inserted behind. However this insertion technique is only required over relatively short distances (e.g. 30–40 m) depending on the number of vertical lifters formed. The precision of the placement of the casing stones is illustrated on the adjacent Kafre pyramid where some of the stones are still in place (figure 12).
One of the unusual statistics on the dating of the pyramid is that some of the top mortar is dated as older than the bottom. The charcoal remains in some of the mortar tested by Haas gave a higher date reading in the 198th course compared to the 2nd course.10
When the level of the construction ramp is reached, the ramp is then dismantled layer by layer and the materials and the mud bricks recycled.
Building passages and chambers
wikimedia.org: Mirko ucur
Figure 12. The top of the adjacent Khafre Pyramid shows the remains of some casing stones still in place, which illustrate the smoothness of the finished face.
The subterranean passage beneath the pyramid (figure 5) was probably excavated below ground level at the time the base platform for the pyramid was prepared. With this two-stage proposal, all the other passages and chambers could have been formed as the stone blocks were placed into position and the work progressed. There are also the mysterious ‘star shafts’. These are a marvel in construction, as they penetrate through the core masonry as shown by the robotic exploration of Rudolf Gantenbrink.11 They would have been cut retrospectively with incredible accuracy.
There are several large chambers and a Grand Gallery. The cutting out and lining of these spaces would be done just below the work platform. This would allow plenty of light and air for workers, and also the ability to check all alignments which are very accurate. Lintels and ceiling stones would easily be placed in position once the 64-metre level for the stones was reached. Very little lifting would be required.
There has been some discussion that micro gravimetric measurements (X-rays) have shown lesser density in some corners and perimeter areas of the Pyramid.3 This may be due to different stone densities or cavities. If proven, these could be the remains of worker amenity areas in the course of the works. The ‘room’ recently rediscovered two thirds of the way up from the base in the north-east corner could be a supervision ‘office’ for northern and eastern sides.3
Why is every course different?
The exact measure of every course was first done by French surveyors and later followed by the British archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie. Their range in dimensions is 500 mm to 1,500 mm (figure 8). This does not make sense from a construction point of view. Surely making every course the same would be quicker and simpler to build. An explanation can be found in the requirement for dimensional checking and knowing what number applies for each course. This is important in any internal cutting of passages.
By making every course different, the architect can easily know which level he is at for checking. A simple measure of a stone and checking with the referenced course index gives the position. With 209 courses, this is an important consideration.
Was Herodotus partly right?
A famous 5th century BC Greek historian Herodotus made several references to the building of the Great Pyramid.12 His source was Egyptian priests he visited at that time. He described a large ramp over 1.6 km long and a height of 15 m. This has been proposed as the eastern ramp by which Tura limestone for the casing stones was transported from the Nile harbour.
He also makes reference to the lifting machines which raised the stones from one level to the other. They are described as mechanical devices that were operated by humans on tiers. So both ‘ramps’ and ‘lifting machines’ seem to figure in the Egyptian explanation of the construction.
Conclusion
Tompkins said,
“Modern engineers are astounded by both the enormity of the problems involved in the construction of the Pyramid and the optician’s precision with which these problems were solved. As originally designed, with its full mantle of polished limestone, the Pyramid must have been a dazzling sight.”13
How was the Great Pyramid built? That is a question that has intrigued people for millennia. As these events took place in the past, and we have no observers or written illustrations of how the construction was achieved, it is not possible to ‘prove’ how an ancient structure was built. However modern architects and engineers can examine the structure and determine feasible methods that may have given the desired result. When we consider that the ancient people were as intelligent as we are and had access to a reasonable level of technology then certain solutions suggest themselves. We call it ‘constructability’—logic in building.
Many of the theories proposed do not have that logic—not possible or not practical. The dimensional aspects listed are also key in any proposal. However, the two stage solution for the construction of the Pyramid is a very feasible solution to how the Pyramids were built. It is clear that the builders of the Great Pyramid had obvious architectural and engineering skills. One thing is certain in the construction—it was meant to endure for a long time—which it has!
Physicist: The Universe had a beginning!
Physicists: The universe had a beginning
by David Catchpoole
Published: 5 June 2012 (GMT+10)
stock.xchng
As an idea, the ‘big bang’ just doesn’t cut it—that is, it is no longer sufficient for its intended task. In fact, it never was.
What was its intended task? To provide a godless means of explaining the origin of the cosmos. However, as we have earlier reported, even diehard atheist physicists areabandoning the big bang, given its increasingly evident failures to fit the known facts of the universe.1
But there’s another reason why “many physicists have been fighting a rearguard action against it for decades”, as a recent editorial in New Scientist explained.2
That is, its alleged “theological overtones”. The New Scientist editorial put it this way:
“If you have an instant of creation, don’t you need a creator?”
The editorial then outlines how cosmologists had, over anumber of years, come up with “several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see page 6). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.”2
‘All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.’—Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University, Boston (USA), January 2012
The ‘see page 6’ article referred to is by Lisa Grossman and soberly titled/subtitled: “Death of the eternal cosmos—From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse, every model of the universe has a beginning.”3
The article relates how physicists such as Stephen Hawking “tend to shy away from cosmic genesis” in order to avoid “the thorny question”, i.e. the need for, a supernatural creator. They had relied upon models designed to dodge the origins problem, such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, which give the appearance of time continuing indefinitely in the past as well as the future.
Counter-intuitively these models had been constructed to be compatible with the big bang. I.e. the big bang was not the beginning. However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained earlier this year, hope in these ideas “may now be dead”.3 Vilenkin showed that all these models still demand a beginning. They do not stretch back in true infinity; rather, there is still a “start of everything.”3
Of the eternal inflation model, Vilenkin says that, “You can’t construct a space-time with this property”—the equations simply don’t work. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.”3
And Vilenkin said that while cyclic universes have an “irresistible poetic charm and bring to mind the Phoenix” (quoting the late Belgian astronomer and priest Georges Lemaître), the model was hopelessly wrong in its predictions of the universe’s level of order today. If there had indeed already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe today should be in a state of maximum disorder. As the New Scientistarticle pointed out:
“Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.”3
The attempted rescue suggestion, viz. that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle, therefore isn’t yet at maximum disorder, also fails on the same point as the eternal inflation model. I.e., “if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.”3
And as for a third idea that the cosmos previously “existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg”, which later ‘cracked’ to create the big bang, Vilenkin and research associates have ‘cracked’ that notion, too. Their work showed that quantum instabilities would force such an ‘egg’ to collapse after a finite amount of time. And even if it cracked beforehand, leading to the supposed big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed, and therefore also within a finite amount of time. “This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe”, says Vilenkin. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”3
And so in that light, as the editorial of that issue of New Scientist muses, physicists must answer the problem: “How do you get a universe, complete with the laws of physics, out of nothing?”2
The One who really is eternal, who exists “from everlasting to everlasting”,4 and whose creation of the space-time construct presents such a conundrum to cosmologists who would deny Him,5 has already spoken much about the beginning—for those willing to listen. Sadly, even some Christian apologists (such as Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig) have naively been duped into advocating ‘God used the big bang and other godless origins ideas’—untenable on all counts.6 The only way to avoid such error is by believing God’s Word—from the very first verse.
Time to Think!
Time to think
Maybe young-earth creationists should sometimes just ‘shut up’? …
Wikipedia.org
The Thinker
Published: 7 June 2012 (GMT+10)
Shortly after taking my assigned seat for a three-hour flight, I was surprised when the gentleman sitting next to me suddenly asked, “Why are you reading that?”
He was referring to a page of Hebrew print which I’d brought with me. I explained to him that I had hopes of catching up on my homework for an introductory course in Hebrew language that I was doing at the time.
“May I see it?” he asked, and, taking the page of Hebrew script from me, began reading it aloud. It was Genesis chapter 1, and he read it fluently, without any hesitation, just like my Hebrew language teacher. I was astonished.
“You know Hebrew!” I said, impressed.
“Oh yes,” he replied, “but tell me, why are you interested in learning Hebrew?”
If you saw a blind man heading for a pit, would you not shout a warning?
Wondering if this might be a ministering opportunity, I said:
“I’m a Christian, and much of the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, hence my interest.”
“My brother in Christ!” beamed my travelling companion, “Oh how wonderful it is—the Lord has brought us together for this flight—what a wonderful time of fellowship we’ll have!” His joy was genuine, and as the conversation unfolded, Edwin1 explained how his love for the Lord had resulted in him enrolling at Bible College (which is where he had learnt Hebrew), going on to become a Lecturer in New Testament Studies at a mainstream theological seminary.
FreeDigitalPhotos.net, Stuart Miles
Knowing of the widespread antipathy towards a straightforward reading of Genesis in many theological seminaries,2 and its often-tragic consequences,3 I couldn’t resist asking certain questions to ascertain Edwin’s view of Genesis. [See: ‘Are you a young-earth creationist?’—Nine questions to ascertain whether your future pastor, youth group leader or Bible College Principal takes a straightforward view of Genesis]
It didn’t take long to discover that, despite his evident love for the Lord Jesus Christ, Edwin was as ‘soft’ on Genesis as any other non-young-earth-creationist-Christian I’d ever met.
Now, painful experience had taught me that Christians with long-age or theistic evolutionary views do not like to be ‘bailed up’ [their term] by zealous young-earth creationists.
And I could see there was a definite risk of that happening here, for Edwin had the window seat, and I was next to him—he couldn’t ‘escape’ anywhere! So I resolved to be mindful to be asgentle as possible, i.e. to converse with Edwin such that hewanted to discuss Genesis with me. (And thus I might help him see that the Bible can be trusted re origins.) Our ‘time of fellowship’ together on this flight had started heartwarmingly amicably—I wanted to keep it that way.
So, seeing Edwin’s obvious passion for Christ, I asked him what sort of objections he encounters when proclaiming the Gospel. (Many evangelical Christians get very excited (and rightly so) when they see that the ‘objections’ to Genesis are easily demolished, and that the issue of origins is a powerful tool for reaching out to those who are perishing in today’s world. I had expected Edwin to say that it’s the creation/evolution issue that non-Christians use to fob off his evangelistic efforts.)
“Objections?” replied Edwin, looking puzzled.
I soon realized that Edwin’s love for the Lord hadn’t yet translated into an outreach-oriented love for the lost—he’d apparently had no experience at all of telling unbelievers about salvation through Jesus Christ. Hence he’d never heard their objections.
But there was something else at issue here, which did not become apparent to me until we’d conversed further.
I was very surprised to hear Edwin say that in his city, he didn’t know any atheists at all—pretty much everyone believed in God.
I said, “What about other religions? I don’t mean other denominations; I mean other religions, like Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam. Don’t you have any Buddhists, etc., in your city?”
“Oh, yes” replied Edwin.
“Well?” I said, “aren’t you trying to win them for the Lord?”
Edwin looked incredulous.
“No need,” he said, “They’ve already got their own religion.”
I was amazed. I’d heard of some certain leaders of ‘mainstream’ denominations espousing such views before, but this was the first time I’d ever encountered it in person.
“Tell me,” I said, “Did Jesus say that there are many paths to God or that He alone is THE Way—that no-one comes to the Father except through Him?”
After a few seconds silence, Edwin, looking very shocked, acknowledged what the Scriptures say on that point.
‘Actually,’ said the Bible College lecturer, ‘I’ve often wondered about Cain’s wife myself.’
“So,” I said, “doesn’t that mean that Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are not currently on the narrow road that leads to life but are on a wide road leading to Hell? If you saw a blind man heading for a pit, wouldn’t the most loving thing you could do be to shout a warning?”
Edwin did not refute what I’d just said, but he seemed reluctant to accept it. Then he said, “But you can’t just go up to someone you don’t know and talk to them about Jesus! And how do you tell whether they already believe in Jesus or not?”
I pointed out that the Apostle Paul wrote that we are to be alert for opportunities and make the most of them when they arise (Colossians 4:5–6). I said, “I have a friend in Sydney who is very good at that. For example, he was sitting at a dining table in a restaurant, and his friends were slow in deciding what to order. So he took the opportunity to turn to the waitress and asked her directly, ‘Are you a Christian?’”
Edwin looked aghast, and his mouth dropped open, but no sound came out. I asked him, “Do you know what the waitress said?” I paused. “She said, ‘No!’ The waitress said ‘No!’ What would you have said then, Edwin, if you’d been in my friend’s shoes?”
Edwin still looked aghast, his mouth remained open, but still no sound came out. So I said, “Well, I’ll tell you what my friend said. Just two words: ‘Why not?’ Isn’t that brilliant!? With just two questions my friend can identify that someone is not a Christian and elicit the reason(s) why.4 And do you know what the waitress said? She said straight away, ‘Where did Cain get his wife?’ How would you have answered that, Edwin?”
“Actually,” said Edwin, “I’ve often wondered about that myself.”
“I’m sure you already know the answer,” I replied, “but maybe just don’t realize it yet. Let me help you. Tell me, why did Adam name his wife Eve?”
stock.xchng
Edwin didn’t know. I was a little taken aback that a lecturer at a Bible College couldn’t answer that question (especially one who could read Genesis 1 aloud in Hebrew!), but I nevertheless gently pointed out that the Bible says that Adam named his wife ‘Eve’ because she would become the mother of all the living.5 So Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve, must have married another of Adam and Eve’s children.6
Edwin blurted out, “But that would mean he married his sister! That’s outrageous.”
I asked him why that would be a problem. Edwin said, “Because it’s against God’s commandments. And the children would be retarded.”
Gently, I said, “Certainly in the Bible, God is on record as saying that ‘Cursedis the man’ who marries his sister, or even his half-sister.7 But here’s a question: Abraham’s wife Sarah—was she related to Abraham in some way?”
A look of pained anxiety crossed Edwin’s face. So I continued, “Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister, as Abraham said, ‘the daughter of my father though not of my mother’.8 But tell me, does the Bible say that Abraham was cursed, orblessed?”
“Abraham was blessed, of course,” said Edwin. “So, there’s a contradiction.”
“No,” I replied, “there’s no contradiction at all. To whom was God speaking when He said, “Cursed is the man … ?”
Edwin hesitated to answer, so I filled in with, “To Moses, of course. It’s in Deuteronomy. So the question now is, who came first:Moses, or Abraham?”
At this point, I must say that what happened next was a huge surprise to me. I did not anticipate this at all.
Edwin began shifting uncomfortably in his seat, even undoing and redoing his seat belt, then saying in a louder voice, and in a tone of extreme annoyance, “I am getting sick and tired of you asking me these questions about CHILDREN’S STORIES.”
Well, I confess somewhat shamefacedly that this jibe about the Book of Moses, about God’s Word, coming as it did from a Bible College lecturer, was too much for my patience.
“Children’s stories?!!!” I responded crossly, “God’s Word is NOT a ‘children’s story’. It is an actual account of history, and when understood as such, it makes sense ofwho we are, why we’re here, and this world where we live. Abraham and Sarah came before Moses, and Cain and his sister before that, so there was no problem in God’s sight for them to marry—no moral commandment was broken. And biologically, there was no problem either. The Bible says that everything was originally created ‘very good’9 —it was only after the Fall that things started going downhill, right in line with what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 8:19-22, that the whole creation since the Fall has been in ‘bondage to decay’. So instead of the situation we have today, where the accumulated genetic mutations are such that we have to marry a distantrelative (for those of us who marry indeed marry a relative), it was no problem pre-Moses to marry a close relative, even a sibling.10 Surely, Edwin, you would not say that the Jewish people, the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, are ‘retarded’? Proportionally, they’ve been awarded more Nobel prizes for scientific achievement than any other ‘race’!”11
Edwin latched onto the word ‘race’. “Actually,” he said, “what about all the races? What about all the skin colours?”
As Edwin himself had very dark skin (he said that he had some Papuan heritage), it was a great opportunity to explain that there’s only one skin pigment to speak of, melanin, and the variation in the amount of melanin between individuals and between people groups fits with the biblical account of history. I explained that Adam and Eve would have likely been medium-brown, and that the dispersal from Babel occurred in family groups, with the difficulty of language barriers separating the groups referred to colloquially today as ‘races’.
Edwin suddenly put his hand up like a traffic policeman, saying sternly, ‘Stop. Stop. That’s enough! I’ve had enough. I don’t want to hear any more. Don’t say any more. Please be quiet.’
We covered many topics in our conversation, as Edwin had in mind many issues and raised, one after the other, ‘objections’ to taking the Bible as straightforward history. And so I endeavoured to answer him on each of his questions (all of which are answered multiple times on this website—so anybody who has familiarized themselves with this material could just as easily have answered him also). Questions such as dinosaurs and other fossils, what about‘ape-men’, whether the Ark could have been real, and what about carnivores pre-Fall.
We were making, in my view, great progress—I was excited to see (it seemed to me) that Edwin was being won over on all of these key points. But perhaps my eagerness was such that I was impervious to signs that maybe Edwin was not travelling so well in our traversing of these issues. Because, after two hours of unbroken lively conversation, Edwin suddenly put his hand up like a traffic policeman, saying sternly, “Stop. Stop. That’s enough. I’ve had enough. I don’t want to hear any more. Don’t say any more. Please be quiet.”
‘I see it now, all our sickness and death, a world in ‘bondage to decay’—yes, it is as you say. Jesus is the answer that everybody needs.’
I was mortified. In my eagerness to help him see that the Bible can be trusted, I’d instead pushed him too far, and so killed the conversation. I’d been over-zealous, and ruined our time of fellowship. Had I perhaps even turned a Christian friend into an enemy? I’d done the dreaded ‘bailing-up-in-a-corner’ so despised of passionate biblical creationists. I sat there morbidly for the remaining hour of the journey, wallowing in remorse, replaying endlessly in my head our conversation, wondering where I’d gone wrong, ruing the ‘opportunity lost’. Woe is me.
The plane touched down on the runway at our destination airport, and taxied to a halt on the tarmac. This airport had no ‘aerobridge’ facilities, hence passengers would be alighting down stairs to the tarmac.
Passengers began impatiently to crowd the aisles, gathering their bags from the overhead lockers. To my surprise, Edwin spoke up. “You know, brother,” he said, “I’ve been thinking. Everything you’ve been telling me is right. There really was an Adam and Eve, and a Garden, in a ‘very good’ world, and it all came undone because of Adam disobeying God. The fossils can’t be before that moment, because there was no death before then—the animals were all vegetarian. The fossils date from Noah’s Flood. The dinosaur fossils, too. But after the Flood as people spread out over the earth, they saw the offspring of the Ark dinosaurs, hence Chinese dragons and the like. Even in my own country, people remember stories of fierce creatures menacing people near the lakes and swamps—I can see now those creatures might have been dinosaurs, not yet extinct. The tower of Babel, and all that, I see it now, all our sickness and death, a world in ‘bondage to decay’—yes, it is as you say. Jesus is the answer thateverybody needs.”
MorgueFile.com, FlyingPete
WOW!
So it seems that Edwin had simply needed me to ‘shut up’ for a while, that he might have some time to think. Actually, Edwin’s example is something we’ve noticed many times over, i.e. that people need some time to mentally ‘process’ what biblical creationists have presented to them. In many cases it’s a ‘bombshell’ for them—the idea that the Bible can be trusted as straightforward history is a concept that they’ve never previously encountered, and can take some time to absorb. Having been exposed to thousands of hours of evolutionary storytelling in secular education, and the ‘fog’ that passes as scholarship in many theological institutions, it would indeed be remarkable if de-programming of all that indoctrination was instantaneous. The fact that Edwin was apparently able to quietly assess a new worldview in just an hour of silent reflection on his part, correctly, was actually quite commendable, indeed remarkable.
So it seems that Edwin had simply needed me to ‘shut up’ for a while, that he might have some time to think. Actually, Edwin’s example is something we’ve noticed many times over, i.e. that people need some time to mentally ‘process’ what biblical creationists have presented to them. In many cases it’s a ‘bombshell’ for them—the idea that the Bible can be trusted as straightforward history is a concept that they’ve never previously encountered, and can take some time to absorb. Having been exposed to thousands of hours of evolutionary storytelling in secular education, and the ‘fog’ that passes as scholarship in many theological institutions, it would indeed be remarkable if de-programming of all that indoctrination was instantaneous. The fact that Edwin was apparently able to quietly assess a new worldview in just an hour of silent reflection on his part, correctly, was actually quite commendable, indeed remarkable.
By now the plane’s engines had been completely turned off, but all passengers remained on board, most crowding the aisle holding their bags, as there was some delay/problem with the mobile stairs and so the plane’s doors remained closed. Despite the crowd of people on board, having now to wait until the doors could be opened, the cabin was eerily silent, except for just one person speaking: Edwin, to me. “You know, brother, you and I being together on this flight was no accident. The Lord is good. I needed to hear what you have now said to me. The Lord arranged for it to happen. It was the Lord who arranged for us to be seated together on this plane. It was the Lord who gave us the opportunity to have this conversation. Praise the Lord!”
Edwin said this as he took my hand, shaking it warmly. I was ecstatic. What a moment to savour! But then a lady, standing in the aisle about four seat rows to the front of us, spoke up loudly. “And the Lord gave THAT man,” she said for all to hear, pointing straight at me with her outstretched arm and index finger, “a VERY PENETRATING VOICE!”
I wanted to crawl under the seat with embarrassment. It seems my words had carried somewhat further than I’d intended …
Wikipedia.org
