Jupiter, Metallic Hydrogen, and Intelligent Design

[rockytopva]

They are saying that the grey areas pictured below is most probably metallic hydrogen. It takes 72,000,000 psi do make the hydrogen gas metallic, which the gravity of Jupiter would provide. If this is true... How would have Jupiter came into existence without intelligent design?

 

[rockytopva]

If Jupiter were 75x bigger the metallic hydrogen would fuse, and Jupiter would become a sun.

 

[rockytopva]

Comparing the Sun, Jupiter, and the Earth.

On Earth - Hydrogen is a gas
On Jupiter - Hydrogen is metallic
On the Sun - Hydrogen is plasma energy caused by fission

 

[Halbhh]

It is so amazing isn't it?

This Universe is the laws of nature at work. Physics.

And physics *is* intelligent design. Praise God.

----------

(btw, the wording for post three you need should read:
"On the Sun: Hydrogen is plasma, fuel for the fusion that powers the Sun.")

 

[Papias]

How would have Jupiter came into existence without intelligent design?

Um, it's normal physics. The big bang produced mostly hydrogen, and gravity pulls stuff together, including hydrogen. It's just as normal as the fact that a dropped ball falls.

Yes, it is wonderful and it is God's hand in our universe - according the natural laws as described in Hebrews, chapter 1.

"Intelligent design" is often an cover for evolution denying creationism. Jupiter in no way supports that.

In Christ - Papias

 

[rockytopva]

The big bang produced mostly hydrogen, and gravity pulls stuff together, including hydrogen.

Pretty good generality... Bang! And out pops hydrogen! Now we can call ourselves intelligent!

 

[timewerx]

If Jupiter were 75x bigger the metallic hydrogen would fuse, and Jupiter would become a sun.

Between 1x Jupiter and 75x Jupiter in order to make a Jupiter is a pretty large margin which the laws of probability could have easily accomplished.

Probably look somewhere else for intelligent design. I'm not disagreeing with you about the the intelligent design of the Universe, but I'll probably look somewhere else.

I think the answer lies in the elementary particles that make up subatomic particles, the atom, and ultimately, visible matter. Ironically, that is where secular scientists are also shooting for (for a different purpose) but they are on the right track.

Jesus is also hinting the fact that the Universe began with something incredibly tiny -- by faith the Universe is created by God. Faith is also likened to a tiny mustard seed growing into a large tree. Non-canonical scriptures also describes the Universe as a tree. Even ancient Nordic religion calls our Universe the "World Tree".

Jesus places greater importance on the unseen (invisible) that makes up the visible (matter). Jesus is talking about the atoms and also the Spirit in context.

 

[Radrook]

Pretty good generality... Bang! And out pops hydrogen! Now we can call ourselves intelligent!

Why can't a Big Bang be evidence of a creator?

 

[Radrook]

If Jupiter were 75x bigger the metallic hydrogen would fuse, and Jupiter would become a sun.

In your opinion, why did God create Jupiter?

 

[lesliedellow]

Why can't a Big Bang be evidence of a creator?

Because an atheist can just shrug his shoulders, or speculate about things like colliding branes.

Anything except the thing they are quite sure they don't want to believe in.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They are saying that the grey areas pictured below is most probably metallic hydrogen. It takes 72,000,000 psi do make the hydrogen gas metallic, which the gravity of Jupiter would provide. If this is true... How would have Jupiter came into existence without intelligent design?

You answered your own question. All it takes is gravity.

 

[Radrook]

Because an atheist can just shrug his shoulders, or speculate about things like colliding branes.

Anything except the thing they are quite sure they don't want to believe in.

Actually, I have read that there was a certain amount of panic when the Big Bang theory began to emerge specifically because it harmonized with Genesis by strongly indicating a creator. They, of course, had been far more comfortable with the other theories which allowed the dismissal of that concept.

It is all in harmony with the following modus operandi:

Dr. Lewontin, in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997:31 entitled Billions and Billions of Demons (reviewing the book The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan) states:[2]

“ We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[2]



Shmuel Waldman. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Convincing Evidence of the Truths of Judaism. Feldheim Publishers.

-----------------

 

[AirPo]

They are saying that the grey areas pictured below is most probably metallic hydrogen. It takes 72,000,000 psi do make the hydrogen gas metallic, which the gravity of Jupiter would provide. If this is true... How would have Jupiter came into existence without intelligent design?

I was skeptical at first, but found some other references. But if this is possible, shouldn't we have seen a real life example by now?

 

[Astrophile]

Actually, I have read that there was a certain amount of panic when the Big Bang theory began to emerge specifically because it harmonized with Genesis by strongly indicating a creator. They, of course, had been far more comfortable with the other theories which allowed the dismissal of that concept.

Perhaps so, but George Gamow, the founder of the Big Bang cosmology, was as convinced an atheist as Fred Hoyle, and his fellow cosmologist Ralph Alpher was an agnostic and a humanist. Hans Bethe, the third author of the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper, was also an atheist.

 

[lesliedellow]

Perhaps so, but George Gamow, the founder of the Big Bang cosmology, was as convinced an atheist as Fred Hoyle, and his fellow cosmologist Ralph Alpher was an agnostic and a humanist. Hans Bethe, the third author of the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper, was also an atheist.

By the end of his life Hoyle was definitely having second thoughts. He talked about some "super intellect".

 

[Halbhh]

Perhaps so, but George Gamow, the founder of the Big Bang cosmology, was as convinced an atheist as Fred Hoyle, and his fellow cosmologist Ralph Alpher was an agnostic and a humanist. Hans Bethe, the third author of the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper, was also an atheist.

We all know that the truth or false hood of a hypothesis does *not* rely on the beliefs of the originator.

But since you want to list atheists and highlight Gamow....

Gamow's worked to further develop what a Catholic priest had first laid out --

"In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe."
History of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia

This is how science works -- people contribute. And their own beliefs aren't the deciding factor at all.

That Newton believed in God fervently does not make his contributions to math and physics more valid, nor less valid.

Same for Gamow about his beliefs.

 

[Astrophile]

Actually, I have read that there was a certain amount of panic when the Big Bang theory began to emerge specifically because it harmonized with Genesis by strongly indicating a creator. They, of course, had been far more comfortable with the other theories which allowed the dismissal of that concept.

Where have you read this? And, at the beginning of your second sentence, who were 'They'?

The Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper that introduced the 'Big Bang' cosmology was published in 1948. At that time most people in Britain were Christians and church-goers. So far as I know, at the same time more than 80% of the population of the United States and of most of the countries of Western Europe (and Poland) were Christians, so I don't know why the idea that the 'Big Bang' cosmology indicated the existence of a creator should have caused a panic. Also, belief in a creator of the universe does not necessarily require a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why can't a Big Bang be evidence of a creator?

Or an extra-dimensional unicorn, for that matter?

I dunno.... do you have a testable model for this "creator" phenomena of which predictions naturally follow wich include the coming into being of a space-time continuum through a big bang?

Because if you do, I'm sure the world's theoretical physics community is going to want to hear about it.

But I'm guessing you don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because an atheist can just shrug his shoulders, or speculate about things like colliding branes.

Anything except the thing they are quite sure they don't want to believe in.

That's just dishonest.

The big bang, or any other phenomena for that matter, isn't by itself evidence for anything.
It only becomes evidence once it fits within the predictive capabilities of a testable model of explanation.

Since no such model exists for any "creator", intelligent or otherwise, the big bang isn't evidence for such a thing.

Yes, it really is that simple.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, I have read that there was a certain amount of panic when the Big Bang theory began to emerge specifically because it harmonized with Genesis by strongly indicating a creator. They, of course, had been far more comfortable with the other theories which allowed the dismissal of that concept.

Funny.

Btw, after the big bang became formally accepted as a well-supported model, the Pope tried to make that argument by saying "see? the bible said it all along!!!".

After which George LeMaitre, the catholic priest and physicist who came up with the big bang model, wrote the Pope a letter, pleading him to please stop using a scientific theory to try and support / re-interpret biblical stories.

Because he realised very well that it would open up a can of worms. The can being the rest of science and the worms being all the stuff in the bible's stories that is demonstrably nonsense.