We may live at the centre of the universe(so to speak) after all

In Search of Circumstellar Habitable Zones

Daniel Bakken November 25, 2014 4:38 AM 

Editor's Note: As a series at ENV, we are pleased to present "Exoplanets." Daniel Bakken is an engineer who teaches astronomy at the college level, and an entrepreneur in compound semiconductor crystal growth. In a series of articles he critically examines recent claims about exoplanets beyond our solar system, asking whether our own planet Earth is a rarity, or common, in the cosmos.

In the search for habitable planets, the circumstellar habitable zone is the spherical shell environment defined as habitable in a stellar system. Astrobiologists have used the term for many decades. This shell encompasses the distance at which a planet in a fairly circular orbit could maintain liquid water on its surface. We will start here for historical reasons, but broader environments also must be considered. The galactic neighborhood factors in, as does the galactic habitability zone. On a larger scale still, there is also a cosmic habitable age, needed to produce the necessary elements for life and life-supporting planets. These factors cannot be completely separated, and all of cosmic history also plays an important role.

The primary problem with liquid water on a planet's surface is getting the planet in the right range for temperature and pressure.¹ We now know this concept needs to be modified to what is called the circumstellar continuously habitable zone. This zone allows a body to have liquid water not just at one point in time, but over several billion years.² After all, it has required nearly four billion years of stable conditions on Earth for intelligent technological life to appear. François Forget recognized the difficulty in his paper on this topic:

I will not discuss here the inherent difficulty of biological evolution and the fact that "a lot of luck" may have been required to make animals (Ward and Brownlee, 2000, Carter, 2008). Nevertheless, it is striking that when assessing the odds of having planets harboring complex or even intelligent life like in the Drake equation, one must estimate the frequency of planets which can remain continuously habitable for billions of years.³

This is much more restrictive. For a body to be continuously habitable for this length, many other factors come into play.

In order to understand the complexities of the CHZ, let's look at it in more detail. The inner boundary of the CHZ can be defined in two different ways. It can be set by the "moist greenhouse" effect, where water is transported by energy from the host star into the upper atmosphere, where it is broken up by ultraviolet light into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen has enough energy to be lost to outer space, slowly drying out the planet. The other defining inner limit of the CHZ is the runaway greenhouse effect, where water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas, and eventually heats the surface to the point it cannot support liquid water.⁴

The outer boundary can be defined by the maximum possible carbon dioxide-caused greenhouse effect that can allow water in the liquid state on the surface, without creating so many carbon dioxide clouds that reflectivity of the planet increases to the point where it cancels out the greenhouse effect.⁵ As far as the outer edge of our sun's habitable zone, the classical model suggests the Earth is already on the outer edge to avoid runaway glaciation.⁶ But as Forget says, "In reality, on Earth there is a long-term stabilization of the surface temperature and CO₂ level due to the carbonate-silicate cycle."⁷

To increase the size of the habitable zone, and thus the chances for finding habitable planets, it has been suggested that planets with masses between one and ten times that of Earth (called super-Earths in the literature)⁸ with a H₂-He (hydrogen-helium) thick atmosphere, could have greenhouse effects that would enable habitable zones out to ten astronomical units (AU).⁹ An AU is an astronomical unit, the average Earth-Sun distance. That is ten times further out than the Earth presently orbits the Sun. However, models show that the H₂-rich atmosphere will either rapidly escape to space after the planet forms, or remain thick, preventing liquid water with high surface pressure.¹⁰ We must also take account of the fact that the percentage of planets left with exactly the right atmospheric pressures to allow habitable temperatures after the early stages of atmospheric erosion is likely to be very small.¹¹ Although these systems could transition through an appropriate environment, the periods would be thousands to a few millions of years, too short for advanced life over the long haul.

Also to be considered is that animal lung systems can only efficiently work within a narrow range of pressure. The atmospheric pressure cannot vary much from Earth's, which is dependent on the planet's mass, or else the efficient mammalian lung system as we know it will not work.¹² Imagine a world where the atmospheric pressure limits intelligent life to the most basic activities of life, because it requires too much energy to do other productive work. The higher atmospheric pressure increases the viscosity of the air, and without energy to push above and beyond mere survival, any alien life's ability to produce technology would be nil.

Venus and Mars are candidates in our solar system to test these models. The most restrictive CHZ models set the boundaries for our Sun at 0.95 AU for the inner and 1.37 AU for the outer one. The Earth couldn't be much closer to the Sun than it is, but it enjoys, according to these models, the near-maximum energy from the Sun that life can utilize.¹³ A further study found that the inner boundary may be even more severe. It looks like the inner limit to avoid a moist greenhouse loss of water is 0.99 AU -- almost exactly where the Earth sits in its orbit.¹⁴

The circumstellar habitable zone was historically calculated with constant circular orbits and constant energy flux, but newer studies include other variables that would certainly affect a planet's habitability. Previous to 2011, most studies of habitable atmospheres were conducted with easy to model one-dimensional steady state radiative convective parameters that simulated average planet-wide conditions. These 1D models are too simple to gauge properly the habitability of a planet. Utilizing more sophisticated 3D models with time-based changing parameters, the actual habitability of a planet can be approximated much better. These also can give local habitability data by including day-night cycles, and seasons. They can also model the impact of clouds on habitability for the first time, which is important, since clouds can affect the boundaries of a star's habitable zone.¹⁵

These more complex 3D models can also simulate with much better precision what can happen to carbon dioxide and water on a tidally locked planet, or one with high eccentricity or obliquity. Some planets could have liquid water that are further out than the classical models suggest if they have high levels of carbon dioxide.¹⁶ However, these high pressures would likely not enable efficient lungs such as exist on the earth, making it difficult to develop technological civilizations.

The other outcomes of these models seldom suggest habitable climates, and it seems that these complex simulations bring with them more reasons for pessimism in the search for habitable worlds. These studies include factors such as gravitational interactions, stellar winds, and particle radiation, UV radiation, and luminosity variations. Many other factors probably also come into play, but for the stellar habitable zone studies these are the most recently investigated.

Next up: The Right Kind of Star.

References Cited:

(1) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 180.

(2) Gonzalez, "Setting the Stage for Habitable Planets," 38.

(3) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 180.

(4) Gonzalez, "Setting the Stage for Habitable Planets," 37-39.

(5) Ibid., 37.

(6) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 182.

(7) Ibid., 6.

(8) Dimitar Sasselov, The Life Of Super-Earths: How the Hunt for Alien Worlds and Artificial Cells Will Revolutionize Life on Our Planet (New York: Basic Books, 2012), 64.

(9) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 183.

(10) Ibid., 6.

(11) Robin Wordsworth, "Transient conditions for biogenesis on low-mass exoplanets with escaping hydrogen atmospheres," Icarus 219 No. 1 (May 2012): 276-279.

(12) Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny: How The Laws Of Biology Reveal Purpose In The Universe(New York: The Free Press, 1998), 128.

(13) Gonzalez, "Setting the Stage for Habitable Planets," 37.

(14) Ibid., 37.

(15) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 184.

(16) Ibid.

culinary clash.

Dropping the gavel on Darwinists.

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.¹ "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent paragraph:

"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."

In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

Philip S. Skell tvk@psu.edu is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His research has included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions.

Path to the good life?

"The cheque's in the mail"our Darwinist friends assure.

Evolution's Central Claim Has Not Yet Been Observed

Tom Bethell March 23, 2013 5:19 AM

The other day, Stephen Batzer commented here on a great article by Vincent Torley posted at Uncommon Descent (and that is indebted to David Berlinski), about the evolution of the vertebrate eye. Here I shall ignore the eye, and focus -- no pun intended! -- on something that Torley quoted in passing. He reminds us that Jerry Coyne once wrote:

When, after a Christmas visit, we watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her journey will be an extrapolation of that first quarter-mile. A creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution is as irrational as an observer who assumes that, after grandma's train disappears around the bend, it is seized by divine forces and instantly transported to Florida. (Nature412:587, 19 August 2001.)

We do need to be reminded that Darwinism depends on extrapolation. According to Harvard's longtime evolution expert Ernst Mayr [1904-2005], evolution across species "is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species."

Coyne's comment shows us that this extrapolation has not yet been demonstrated. If it had been, believe me, we would never hear the end of it. He wouldn't have needed to put grandma on that imaginary train.

Here's the background: In The Origin of Species, Darwin discussed the work of animal breeders, pigeon fanciers in particular. They might vary in coloring or display, but at the end of the day, as Darwin well knew, they all remained pigeons. Dogs vary greatly in size, but dogs they remain.

Darwin said that varieties were "incipient species," thereby staking his claim to the belief they were on their way to becoming something else. In short, he was extrapolating. But that was philosophy, not science. He lacked the evidence to claim that the extrapolation had actually been observed.

Ever since, evolutionists have assumed that it has been observed. But the Coyne quote reminds us that it hasn't been. Grandma just keeps traveling on to Miami, he reassures us, and it takes a "creationist" to raise doubts about that.

Darwin wrote in his 1844 Essay (a preliminary version of the Origin):

That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this belief is grounded . . .

Well, I'm sorry, Charles, but it's up to you to demonstrate that unlimited variation has been observed. It's no good complaining that "most authors" won't tell us why it hasn't been. Almost 170 years later, it still hasn't been.

In the Origin, Darwin wrote that "by the repetition of this process [of micro-evolution] a new variety might be formed, which would either supplant or co-exist with the parent form."

Might be, yes. But we don't know that yet.

Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, wrote in 1858 that his theory could be summarized as "indefinite departure from the original type." "Indefinite departure" is in fact the central claim of the theory of evolution by natural selection. But it still hasn't been observed.

Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and others keep trying to bully us into accepting that it is a "fact." OK. Maybe it is. So give us the evidence. We have to read their books carefully to realize how meager it is. They still haven't shown us that extrapolation. To an amazing extent, their books are filled with tendentious anti-design arguments, not positive evidence of evolution as a demonstrated fact.

In Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Soren Lovtrup wrote: "Neither in nature nor under experimental conditions have any substantial effects ever been obtained through the systematic accumulation of micromutations."

In his final book, What Evolution Is (2001), Ernst Mayr was evasive on the question of whether extrapolation had been observed. He persistently obscures our vision by his references to "population thinking." This is another way of asserting that micro-evolution is a reality. No one doubts that. And from that premise he leads us to suppose that the observed variation is continuous; all the way to Miami.

As to Coyne's metaphor about grandma's train ride, several people made critical comments, in the replies to Torley's article. Here's just one:

It is really hard to know if grandma will ever arrive at Miami when she is laying the track, randomly directed, one rail at a time, as she goes.

Good point. When you are relying on random variation, the track that Coyne presupposes doesn't even exist. And if such parallel tracks could be created, and laid, they might lead anywhere. Or nowhere.

Proverbs8 The Tanakh

Proverbs Chapter 8 מִשְׁלֵי

א  הֲלֹא-חָכְמָה תִקְרָא;    וּתְבוּנָה, תִּתֵּן קוֹלָהּ.	1 Doth not wisdom call, and understanding put forth her voice?
ב  בְּרֹאשׁ-מְרֹמִים עֲלֵי-דָרֶךְ;    בֵּית נְתִיבוֹת נִצָּבָה.	2 In the top of high places by the way, where the paths meet, she standeth;
ג  לְיַד-שְׁעָרִים לְפִי-קָרֶת;    מְבוֹא פְתָחִים תָּרֹנָּה.	3 Beside the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors, she crieth aloud:
ד  אֲלֵיכֶם אִישִׁים אֶקְרָא;    וְקוֹלִי, אֶל-בְּנֵי אָדָם.	4 'Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.
ה  הָבִינוּ פְתָאיִם עָרְמָה;    וּכְסִילִים, הָבִינוּ לֵב.	5 O ye thoughtless, understand prudence, and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
ו  שִׁמְעוּ, כִּי-נְגִידִים אֲדַבֵּר;    וּמִפְתַּח שְׂפָתַי, מֵישָׁרִים.	6 Hear, for I will speak excellent things, and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
ז  כִּי-אֱמֶת, יֶהְגֶּה חִכִּי;    וְתוֹעֲבַת שְׂפָתַי רֶשַׁע.	7 For my mouth shall utter truth, and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
ח  בְּצֶדֶק כָּל-אִמְרֵי-פִי:    אֵין בָּהֶם, נִפְתָּל וְעִקֵּשׁ.	8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness, there is nothing perverse or crooked in them.
ט  כֻּלָּם נְכֹחִים, לַמֵּבִין;    וִישָׁרִים, לְמֹצְאֵי דָעַת.	9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
י  קְחוּ-מוּסָרִי וְאַל-כָּסֶף;    וְדַעַת, מֵחָרוּץ נִבְחָר.	10 Receive my instruction, and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold.
יא  כִּי-טוֹבָה חָכְמָה, מִפְּנִינִים;    וְכָל-חֲפָצִים, לֹא יִשְׁווּ-בָהּ.	11 For wisdom is better than rubies, and all things desirable are not to be compared unto her.
יב  אֲנִי-חָכְמָה, שָׁכַנְתִּי עָרְמָה;    וְדַעַת מְזִמּוֹת אֶמְצָא.	12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of devices.
יג  יִרְאַת יְהוָה,    שְׂנֹאת-רָע: גֵּאָה וְגָאוֹן וְדֶרֶךְ רָע, וּפִי תַהְפֻּכוֹת    שָׂנֵאתִי.	13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; {N} pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
יד  לִי-עֵצָה, וְתוּשִׁיָּה;    אֲנִי בִינָה, לִי גְבוּרָה.	14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom; I am understanding, power is mine.
טו  בִּי, מְלָכִים יִמְלֹכוּ;    וְרֹזְנִים, יְחֹקְקוּ צֶדֶק.	15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
טז  בִּי, שָׂרִים יָשֹׂרוּ;    וּנְדִיבִים, כָּל-שֹׁפְטֵי צֶדֶק.	16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
יז  אֲנִי, אהביה (אֹהֲבַי) אֵהָב;    וּמְשַׁחֲרַי, יִמְצָאֻנְנִי.	17 I love them that love me, and those that seek me earnestly shall find me.
יח  עֹשֶׁר-וְכָבוֹד אִתִּי;    הוֹן עָתֵק, וּצְדָקָה.	18 Riches and honour are with me; yea, enduring riches and righteousness.
יט  טוֹב פִּרְיִי, מֵחָרוּץ וּמִפָּז;    וּתְבוּאָתִי, מִכֶּסֶף נִבְחָר.	19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my produce than choice silver.
כ  בְּאֹרַח-צְדָקָה אֲהַלֵּךְ;    בְּתוֹךְ, נְתִיבוֹת מִשְׁפָּט.	20 I walk in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of justice;
כא  לְהַנְחִיל אֹהֲבַי יֵשׁ;    וְאֹצְרֹתֵיהֶם אֲמַלֵּא.	21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries.
כב  יְהוָה--קָנָנִי, רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ:    קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז.	22 The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old.
כג  מֵעוֹלָם, נִסַּכְתִּי מֵרֹאשׁ--    מִקַּדְמֵי-אָרֶץ.	23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
כד  בְּאֵין-תְּהֹמוֹת חוֹלָלְתִּי;    בְּאֵין מַעְיָנוֹת, נִכְבַּדֵּי-מָיִם.	24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
כה  בְּטֶרֶם הָרִים הָטְבָּעוּ;    לִפְנֵי גְבָעוֹת חוֹלָלְתִּי.	25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth;
כו  עַד-לֹא עָשָׂה, אֶרֶץ וְחוּצוֹת;    וְרֹאשׁ, עַפְרוֹת תֵּבֵל.	26 While as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the beginning of the dust of the world.
כז  בַּהֲכִינוֹ שָׁמַיִם, שָׁם אָנִי;    בְּחֻקוֹ חוּג, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם.	27 When He established the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle upon the face of the deep,
כח  בְּאַמְּצוֹ שְׁחָקִים מִמָּעַל;    בַּעֲזוֹז, עִינוֹת תְּהוֹם.	28 When He made firm the skies above, when the fountains of the deep showed their might,
כט  בְּשׂוּמוֹ לַיָּם, חֻקּוֹ, וּמַיִם, לֹא יַעַבְרוּ-פִיו;    בְּחוּקוֹ, מוֹסְדֵי אָרֶץ.	29 When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not transgress His commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the earth;
ל  וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ, אָמוֹן:    וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים, יוֹם יוֹם; מְשַׂחֶקֶת לְפָנָיו בְּכָל-עֵת.	30 Then I was by Him, as a nursling; and I was daily all delight, playing always before Him,
לא  מְשַׂחֶקֶת, בְּתֵבֵל אַרְצוֹ;    וְשַׁעֲשֻׁעַי, אֶת-בְּנֵי אָדָם.	31 Playing in His habitable earth, and my delights are with the sons of men. {P}
לב  וְעַתָּה בָנִים, שִׁמְעוּ-לִי;    וְאַשְׁרֵי, דְּרָכַי יִשְׁמֹרוּ.	32 Now therefore, ye children, hearken unto me; for happy are they that keep my ways.
לג  שִׁמְעוּ מוּסָר וַחֲכָמוּ;    וְאַל-תִּפְרָעוּ.	33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
לד  אַשְׁרֵי אָדָם, שֹׁמֵעַ-לִי:    לִשְׁקֹד עַל-דַּלְתֹתַי, יוֹם יוֹם--לִשְׁמֹר, מְזוּזֹת פְּתָחָי.	34 Happy is the man that hearkeneth to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
לה  כִּי מֹצְאִי, מצאי (מָצָא) חַיִּים;    וַיָּפֶק רָצוֹן, מֵיְהוָה.	35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
לו  וְחֹטְאִי, חֹמֵס נַפְשׁוֹ;    כָּל-מְשַׂנְאַי, אָהֲבוּ מָוֶת.	36 But he that misseth me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate me love death.'

The Wisdom Of God

Prov. 8:22-30 "Wisdom" and Christ

To further show that Jesus is the first creation of God ("beginning of creation"), we should carefully examine Prov. 8:22-30. The understanding that "Wisdom" in these verses is, in reality, figurative of Jesus in his pre-human existence has always existed in the majority of churches that call themselves Christian. It was commonly noted in the writings of the Church Fathers of the first centuries of Christianity (including such noted scholars as Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc.) Many Bible scholars (trinitarians included) have even said that this connection was made in the New Testament at 1 Cor. 1:24.

For example, trinitarian scholar Edmund Fortman writes:

"Paul applied it [Prov. 8:22-30] to the Son of God. The Apologists [Christian writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries] used it to prove to Gentile and Jew the pre-existence of the Word and his role in creation." - (See CREEDS 5-16: quotes from the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr which equate the Son with "Wisdom" speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 and admit that he had been created by God as the beginning of God's works - Prov. 8:22.)

Trinitarian scholar Dr. W. H. C. Frend agrees:

"By the time he wrote to the Corinthians in c. 53, Paul had developed in his mind the equation of Christ with the divine Wisdom incarnate (`Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God' [1 Cor. 1:24])." - p. 102, The Rise of Christianity, Fortress Press, 1985.

We even find the extremely trinitarian New Bible Dictionary, 1982, p. 1257, saying:

"it is not unexpected that Paul would view Jesus ... as the Wisdom of God. That Paul saw in Christ the fulfilment of Pr. 8:22 ff. seems apparent from Col. 1:15 ff., which strongly reflects the OT description of wisdom."

And the Gospel writers, according to the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, also may have made the Jesus/Wisdom connection: Luke 11:49 speaks of "a word of the wisdom of God" and the parallel account in Matt. 23:34 ff. "is understood as a word of Jesus." Also, in connection with the Gospels at Matt. 12:42 and Luke 11:31, this trinitarian reference work says:

"This can be understood most easily by thinking of the heavenly wisdom whom men despise: in Jesus this wisdom has finally appeared." - p. 1030, Vol. 3.

The very trinitarian The Ante-Nicene Fathers admits:

Prov. viii 22-25. This is one of the favourite Messianic quotations of the Fathers, and is considered as the base of the first chapter of St. John's Gospel. - ANF 1:488, f.n. #10, Eerdmans, 1993 reprint.

And even that staunchest of trinitarian supporters (and probably the most influential and honored of trinitarian scholars), Augustine, made the "Word/Wisdom" connection with Jesus about 410 A. D. in his famous De Civitate Dei (The City of God), Book XI, Chapter 24.

Why, even at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D. Arius quoted this passage as proof that Jesus was not equally God:
"[Arius] had a sharply logical mind and appealed to biblical texts which apparently backed up his arguments - for example, John 17:3....and Proverbs 8:22." - p. 157 (165), Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
And his trinitarian opponent, Athanasius, although sometimes also attempting to appeal to scripture, never refuted this usage of Proverbs 8:22 -
"Athanasius....did not refute Arius by rejecting the relevance of Prov. 8:22." (Even though he attempted to show that Jesus had not been created by quoting Ps. 110:3.) - p. 165 (173), Eerdman's Handbook.
In other words, when Arius quoted Proverbs 8:22 and applied it to Jesus, trinitarian Athanasius didn't dispute that application! Even Athanasius recognized that Wisdom in that scripture was intended to describe the Messiah! We even find Athanasius quoting a letter written by Dionysus, Bishop of Rome (259-268 A.D.) wherein he writes:
"if the Christ is Word and Wisdom and Power, as you know the Divine Scriptures say he is ..." - p. 32, Documents of the Christian Church, Bettenson, Oxford University Press.
Throughout Christendom today trinitarian translators in their reference Bibles refer Revelation 3:14 (which is certainly speaking about Jesus) to Prov. 8:22. For example, the King James Version, Collins Press; the NASB, reference edition, Foundation Press, 1975; and the RSV (with references) published by the trinitarian American Bible Society, all refer Rev. 3:14 to Prov. 8:22. And the GNB (with references) also published by the American Bible Society refers Prov. 8:22 to Rev. 3:14.
It is not surprising that so many Bible translators make this reference. The scholars who have produced the best, most-used texts of the original New Testament Greek used by Bible translators today agree that Rev. 3:14 quoted or borrowed its Greek phrasing from the ancient Greek Septuagint version of Proverbs 8:22 ! These (most, if not all, trinitarian) Bible scholars and their texts in which they have made this connection are:
(1) The Student's Edition of the New Testament in Greek, by Westcott and Hort, p. 613. (2) The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed., by the United Bible Societies, p. 844. (3) Novum Testamentum Graece, by Dr. Eberhard Nestle, p. 665. (4) Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latin, by Joseph M. Bover, p. 725.
If Rev. 3:14 meant "the source of God's creation" (or "the ruler of creation"), it would be senseless to refer it to Prov. 8:22 where "Wisdom" ("Jesus") says that Jehovah "created me at the beginning of his work" - RSV. All these trinitarian sources, by referring Rev. 3:14 to Prov. 8:22, are clearly showing, instead, that the one who who calls himself "the beginning of his [God's] work" is the same person who calls himself the beginning of God's creation!
Similar references between Jesus' pre-human existence and Prov. 8:22-30 can be found in many trinitarian Bibles at other verses, also. My trinitarian KJV, for example, refers John 1:1, 2 to Prov. 8:30. My trinitarian NASB refers John 1:2, 3 to Prov. 8:30.
Even the trinitarian Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, p. 389, in discussing the Greek word logos (often translated "Word" at John 1:1) tells us:
"Logos - Gr. for the term used by John as a name for Christ. It is he alone who so uses the term in the Prologue to his Gospel [John 1:1-17] and in the Apocalypse [Revelation]." And, "logos has a verb form ... meaning `to reason.' So, denotatively, the term has two Greek meanings, the primary unit of thought, speech and writing - word; and reasoning."
This same article goes on to describe the specialized pagan philosophical/religious meanings that were used in the "Golden Age of Greece" and concludes that it is unlikely that John would have used such paganistic meanings: "It is more likely, however, that John derives his Logos Christology from the personified Wisdom of proverbs 8." (Although this is a trinitarian tactic to avoid crediting Philo's Logos concept as the source of John's Logos concept, it is nevertheless true that Philo himself used the Wisdom of Prov. 8:22-30 as one of the important sources for his development of the popular early first century Jewish Logos concept. - See the LOGOS study.)
And, on p. 654, this same mainstream trinitarian publication says:
"`Wisdom' in [Proverbs 8:22-30] may be regarded not as a mere personification of the attribute of wisdom, but as a divine person, considered by many to clarify what John means by his use of logos (word) in [John] 1:1-17."
And the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary, 1982, which in its preface stresses its dedication to the "convictions for which the Tyndale Fellowship stands - the triunity of God....," states on p. 1256,
"The personification [of `Wisdom'] continues in Pr. 8 and reaches its climax in vv. 22 ff., where Wisdom claims to be the first creation of God and, perhaps, an assistant in the work of creation (8:30; cf. 3:19; the difficult amon, `as one brought up' in [the King James Version], should be translated `master workman,' as in RV, RSV,....)."
And on p. 1221 this same reference work (which Christianity Today describes as "true to the Bible as God's word" and "destined to become a standard that will be turned to often by students and ministers alike") tells us that "the Word" [Jesus] is "personified as `Wisdom'" at Prov. 8:22 !
And staunch trinity-defender of the 19th century, W. G. T. Shedd, admits that "Wisdom" of Prov. 8:22, 23 is certainly the pre-existent Christ! - Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 317.

It is therefore extremely obvious that the identification of "Wisdom" at Prov. 8:22-30 with Jesus is not the invention of the Watchtower Society as some anti-Watchtower trinitarians imply!
So, if you accept the view of the majority of those in "traditional" Christendom throughout the Christian era, you will accept the understanding that "Wisdom" at Prov. 8:22-30 refers to the Messiah.
And if you accept that, then it is clear that the Messiah was created (at least there was a time when he was brought into existence by the Father, Jehovah) before the rest of creation. Note the following trinitarian translations of Prov. 8:22 -
1. "The LORD [Jehovah] created me at the beginning of his work" - RSV, and NRSV. (Footnote in NRSV says "Or [created] me as the beginning [of his work].").

2."The LORD made me..." - MLB).

3."The Lord formed me..." - Living Bible.

4. "I was made in the very beginning." - Good News Bible.

5."Yahweh [Jehovah] created me..." - Jerusalem Bible and NJB.

6."The LORD created me..." - New English Bible and REB.

7."Jehovah framed me first" - Byington.

8."The LORD created me..." - The Reader's Digest Bible, 1982.

9."I was the first thing made, long ago in the beginning." - Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992.

10."The Eternal [Jehovah] formed me first of his creation" - Moffatt.

11."The Lord made me the beginning [arkhe] of his ways for his works" - The Septuagint, Zondervan, 1976.

12."The LORD created me as the first of his creations" - Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text (George M. Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta), Harper and Row Publ. (Be sure to examine Prov. 8:23-25, 30 in all translations also.)
The Jewish Bibles also translate it similarly:
1."The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old." - JPS, Margolis, ed., 1917.

2."The LORD created me at the beginning of His course as the first of His works of old." - Tanakh, JPS, 1985.
Why, even that popular trinitarian study Bible, The NIV Study Bible, translates Prov. 8:22 as "the LORD brought me forth as the first of his works" and explains in a footnote for Prov. 8:22:
"brought ... forth. The Hebrew for this verb is also used in Ge 4:1; 14:19, 22 (`Creator')." - Zondervan, 1985.
And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us:
"Created prior to all the [other] works of creation (Prov. 8:22-31), [Wisdom] discloses to men the original order inherent in creation." - p. 1029, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1984.
The trinitarian A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings (ed.) tells us about Wisdom in Prov. 8:
"Wisdom is spoken of in such a way as to make it impossible to believe that only the Divine attribute of wisdom is meant .... It is something outside of, yet standing alongside of, God, created by Him.... Wisdom is further represented as `playing' like a child before Jehovah in His habitable earth, in all the glow of conscious power and as taking special delight in the sons of men." - p. 281, Supplement, 1988 printing.
It is also very clear from scripture that the rest of creation from Jehovah (who alone is the Father) was accomplished through the hands of his first (and only direct - "only-begotten") creation, who was like a master worker for Jehovah. (Remember the trinitarian sources which refer Proverbs 8:30 to John 1:1-3.)
Notice how these trinitarian Bibles render Prov. 8:30:
30 I was beside him, like a master worker" – NRSV.

30 I was beside Him a master builder" – MLB.

30 I was by his side, a master craftsman - Jerusalem Bible and NJB;

30 I was beside him as his craftsman - NAB (1970 & 1991);

30 I was master-workman at his side. - Byington;

30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. - NIV;

30 Then I was beside Him [as] a master craftsman; And I was daily [His] delight, Rejoicing always before Him - NKJV.

30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him - NASB.

30 I was right beside the Lord, helping him plan and build. I made him happy each day, and I was happy at his side. - CEV.

30 Then became I beside him, a firm and sure worker, then became I filled with delight, day by day, exulting before him on every occasion; - Rotherham.

30 Then I was by his side, as a master workman: and I was his delight from day to day, playing before him at all times; - BBE.

30 "I was beside him as a master craftsman. I made him happy day after day, I rejoiced in front of him all the time," - GodsWord.

30 Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, - ASV.

30 Then I am near Him, a workman, And I am a delight--day by day. Rejoicing before Him at all times, - Young's Literal Translation.

30 even I was a workman at His side; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him; - MKJV.

30 then I was at His side, like a master workman; and I was His delights day by day, rejoicing before Him at every time; - LITV.

30 I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; - Douay.

30 I was a skilled craftsman beside Him. I was His delight every day, always rejoicing before Him. - Holman Christian Standard Bible.

30 then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, - English Standard Version.

30 was beside Him as the leading workman. I was His joy every day. I was always happy when I was near Him. - New Life Bible.

30 I was beside him like a skilled worker. The Lord was happy every day because of me. I made him laugh and be happy all the time. - ETRV.

30 Then I was the craftsman by his side. I was a delight day by day, Always rejoicing before him, - Hebrew Names Version.

30 Then I was by him, [as] a master craftsman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, - Updated Bible Version 1.9.

30 I was with him ordring all thinges, deliting dayly and reioysyng alway before hym. - The Bishop's Bible (1568).

30 I was with him, ordringe all thinges, delytinge daylie & reioysynge allwaye before him. - Coverdale (1535).

30 Y was making alle thingis with him. And Y delitide bi alle daies, and pleiede bifore hym in al tyme, - Wycliffe (1395)

30 I was by Him (harmozousa- "arranging all things – f.n.) – The Septuagint, Zondervan, 1970.

…………………….

([Prov.]8:30; cf. 3:19; the difficult amon, `as one brought up' in [the King James Version], should be translated `master workman,' as in RV, RSV,....)." - p. 1256, New Bible Dictionary, 1982.
……………………..
"525 [Amon] m. - workman, architect, ... Prov. 8:30, used of the hypostatic wisdom of God, the maker of the world." - p. 58, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker Book House, 1979.
…………………….
"525 amon (54c); from 539; an artificer, architect, master workman:--artisans (1), master workman (1)." - (#) is number of times this NASB word was translated from the original language. - Hebrew-Aramaic & Greek Dictionary: http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.php3?do=show_marg_and_gh&b=20&c=8&v=30

(also see New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, - p. 1490, #525.

..........................................................

"I. [Amon]: artisan Je 52:15; Prov. 8:30; ['all undisputed instances have been cited']" - p. 19, A Concise Hebrew And Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1988.

It may be that figures of speech and personification sometimes appear to be carried too far for our tastes today. But if this scripture only shows a quality personified, but not actually a person (as some anti-Watchtower publications claim), how can we explain that "Wisdom" (at Prov. 8:22-30) came into existence before the rest of creation?

The scriptures show that Jehovah (and only Jehovah) has always existed (Ps. 90:2). Since he is from eternity and has obviously always been wise, then Jehovah's own personal wisdom has always existed; it never was created or produced. And since wisdom cannot exist apart from a personality who is capable of using it, and, since the "Wisdom" of Prov. 8:22-30 came into existence before the rest of creation, it cannot represent the wisdom of any other creature (whether angels or men) but a "firstborn Son"! 

Therefore, this "Wisdom" (at Prov. 8:22-30) must picture a person who was created "at the beginning of His [Jehovah's] work." The rest of the angelic "Sons of God" were created later (but still before "the beginning" of the creation of the world - Job 38:4-7) through the efforts of this Firstborn Son, "Wisdom," the "Master Worker" who came to be at Jehovah's side.