Wednesday, January 05, 2011

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All

Dr. Russell Humphreys gives a possible solution to the question of how stars can be seen many millions of light years away if only a few thousand years have passed since they were created. There is a Fifth Dimension that can explain the problem of Starlight and Time!

According to Humphreys, the universe that we see through our telescopes can be explained by God working in a Fifth Dimension, outside of space and time, to change the tension in the fabric of space. This tension affects the speed of light, and can actually freeze time itself. During Day Four of creation, time froze on Earth, while the stars and galaxies that were spun off into the heavens went through millions of years. The timeless region in the heavens rapidly imploded toward our Earth, and when it broke through sometime during that Fourth Day, the stars and galaxies were finally visible, in all their ancient glory! And yet, only 24 hours passed on Earth that day...

(Marko Malyj's abridged version of A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part, Parts 1 and 2, by Larry Vardiman and D. Russell Humphreys, 2010-11):

One of the issues that concern many people who wish to adopt young-earth creationism as a valid view of earth history is the question of how stars can be seen many millions of light years away if only a few thousand years have passed since they were created. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a previous researcher at Institute for Creation Research (ICR), spent years working on this problem and has developed a creationist cosmology that seems to resolve this question.

On the fourth day of creation, how long did it take God to make the stars and bring their light to earth? No time at all, according to clocks here on earth. That is what Humphreys concludes from his new creationist cosmology research. The cosmology presented in his 1994 book, Starlight and Time (Humphreys 1994) had the light getting to earth in a finite amount of time, not instantaneously. The general features of that cosmology—a universe centered upon our galaxy, expansion of space, and gravitational time dilation—still appear to be correct. But Humphreys was never fully satisfied with its details.

After several months of mathematical work, Humphreys found the solution and the Journal of Creation published his results (Humphreys 2008).

Time Stands Still

Humphrey's new metric (an allowable solution of Einstein’s gravity equations) is not complicated, compared to many modern ones. Because it is simple and yet rigorous, it shows a feature of gravitational time dilation that nobody had noticed before. Humphreys calls this feature of time dilation achronicity, or “timelessness.” It causes clocks and all physical processes—hence, time itself—to be completely stopped in a region that could be very large. This is in contrast to the time dilation around a black hole, in which time is completely stopped only at a certain exact distance from its center, at the “event horizon.” (Hawking 1988).

Space Is Like a Scroll

Space is not empty. Both science and Scripture strongly imply that space is a solid material that we cannot see or feel, though quantum field theory suggests it is extremely dense (Humphreys 1994). We move freely through it and it moves freely through us (Feynman 1965). See Scriptures like Isaiah 40:22: “[God] stretches out the heavens like a [tent] curtain” (NASB), and 16 other similar verses (2 Samuel 22:10; Job 9:8, 26:7, 37:18; Psalm 18:9, 104:2, 144:5; Isaiah 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15; Ezekiel 1:22; Zechariah 12:1).

Lay a piece of typing paper flat on a table. Now roll up the paper like a scroll. You used the third dimension, height, in the air above the table to roll it up. But here is an amazing thing—Scripture says the same thing about the heavens:


And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll. (Isaiah 34:4, NKJV)

The context here is the “host of heaven,” which includes the stars, and “the heavens.” Yet God says He will roll them up like a scroll. That implies that the heavens are thin in a fourth direction that we cannot see. the extra dimension makes sense of the equations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity by giving room in which the “spacetime continuum” can be bent. Time is yet another dimension according to relativity theory, but it is different from the space dimensions.

The Analogy of the Trampoline

If the heavens are thin in one dimension, and like a stretchable fabric under tension, we can compare them to the fabric in a trampoline. Put a heavy ring inside the circular frame on the trampoline. Notice that the weight of the ring makes a dent in the fabric of the trampoline, as in Figure 3. In just the same way (but with more dimensions), Einstein’s gravity equations say the presence of a mass bends the fabric of space. For dents that are not very deep, this picture also fits Newton’s gravity equations.

The First Day of Creation

Now that we have the trampoline analogy in place, we are ready to understand some of the gravitational implications of creation. Recall that Genesis 1:2 mentions water:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (KJV)

Notice “the deep.” This was probably ordinary liquid H2O and would have been in the shape of a ball a few light years in diameter. If Newton’s gravitational constant G had the same value then as now (not necessarily true), all of the water would be well within the event horizon of a black hole.

Now, replace the ring on our trampoline with a heavy metal ball to represent “the deep.” Gravity would be strong around “the deep.” Almost certainly time dilation was taking place. One ordinary-length day of time passed during which time the ball would have contracted due to gravity.

The Beginning of the Second Day of Creation

At the center of “the deep,” God marked off a relatively small spherical region of water. He marked it off with a thin region of space that He called “the firmament,” or in other translations “the expanse” (Genesis 1:7). The Hebrew word raqia suggests something solid that was spread out, such as the bronze hammered thin and spread over the altar of sacrifice (Numbers 16:38). The raqia is understood to consist of the same dense, intangible, and invisible material that was mentioned above, the fabric of space. Above the raqia were the rest of the waters of the deep. Above the waters was more empty space (empty to our perception, but again a material) extending out many billions of light years.

Then, God began spreading out, or expanding, the raqia, hence giving the word its connection with “spreading out.” Somehow, God carried the waters above the firmament outward above the raqia. As the spreading out continued, the waters above the expanse would have become thinner, eventually breaking up into large and small drops of water. Then the drops would begin freezing from the outside inward. So, eventually the waters above the firmament would become a relatively thin region, shaped like a spherical shell, of ice particles.

The Second Day of Creation

The gravitational effect of the shell of waters above the raqia expanding on the second day of creation can be simulated on the trampoline. Remove the heavy metal ball we introduced and replace it with a pebble (representing the small ball of water that is the future earth) within a ring of metal having the same weight as the metal ball. Now there is a nearly-flat area within the ring except for a small dent made by the pebble at the center.

As God expanded the waters above the raqia, the dent in the fabric of space became shallower. This had important relativistic effects on time and space.

God called the raqia “heaven” (Genesis 1:8). At this point, the only created matter within the shell of waters above the heavens was an earth-sized ball of water. According to clues from physics, the expansion of the shell and the raqia is still happening today.

The Remaining Days of Creation

On the third day, God formed the waters below the firmament into the seas and dry land of planet earth, and then He made plants on the dry land. The only light source was apparently God Himself, as Psalm 104:2 suggests: “Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment.” Throughout the third day, the firmament was devoid of sun, moon, planets, and stars.

The new metric (solution of Einstein’s gravity equations) Humphreys developed to describe the relationship among mass, space, and time says (Humphreys 2008) that:
  • the distribution of mass controls the fabric of space,
  • the fabric of space controls the speed of light, and  
  • the speed of light controls time.
Time is speeded up or slowed down throughout space according to the distribution of mass. Figure 2 shows the relative speed of clocks as a function of gravitational potential energy and distance from the center of the cosmos where the initial mass was created. Notice that time slows down at lower potential energy until a critical value is reached. This value called the critical depth is the level below which time itself stops. This condition without time is called the achronous (no time) region.


Imagine that events prior to Day Four have expanded space and moved the shell of “waters above the heavens” out to a radius of, say, one billion light years. This would have left the earth and the nearly-flat fabric of space within the ring just above the critical potential.

Now imagine that during the fourth day, God created star masses in a way that would form a linearly-dented perturbation in the otherwise flat potential of the fabric of space, as shown in Figure 3.

The horizontal dashed line in Figure 3 represents the critical potential. As soon as God created the galaxy masses, the fabric of space began sinking slowly and the central part—containing the earth—dropped below the critical potential. An observer in ordinary space a bit farther from the center would have seen a black sphere appear at the center of the cosmos and begin growing in size. The entire interior of the sphere was an achronous region. For slow-moving objects in that region, time would have stopped. The critical potential depends on the speed of light, which in turn depends on the tension in the fabric of space. If, as God stretched or contracted the fabric of space (Isaiah 40:22), He changed the tension simultaneously everywhere, the speed of light changed and the position of the critical potential with respect to the fabric also changed. The critical potential line in Figure 3 could have moved up or down quite rapidly

A Light Transit-time Scenario on Day Four


Let’s suppose that God now increased the tension in the fabric of space, and the critical potential line moved downward. As each galaxy emerged from the receding timeless region, it resumed emitting light. Some of the emitted light would have gone inward toward the center (see Figure 4). When the sphere of timelessness reached zero radius and disappeared, the earth emerged, and immediately the light that had been following the sphere reached earth, even light that started billions of light years away. The stretching of the fabric of space had been occurring continuously all along the light trajectory, thus red-shifting the light wavelength.

On earth, it was still only the fourth day. An observer on the night side of the earth would have seen a black sky one instant, and a sky filled with stars the next. With a telescope he would also be able to see distant galaxies with suitably red-shifted spectra. From Day Four until now, about 6,000 years later, an observer on earth would have been able to see stars billions of light years away.

Implications and Elaborations

Although we have presented the basics of Humphreys’ new cosmology in these two articles (Vardiman and Humphreys, 2010, 2011), it has been in an abbreviated form without equations and elaborate illustrations. In a third article, we will conclude this discussion by describing the implications of Humphreys’ cosmology in more detail using a composite figure to illustrate the effects of stretching the heavens on earth time, cosmic time, and location in space. We will also discuss a possible second time-dilation episode associated with the Genesis Flood and some cosmic evidence for the Humphreys model.

References (selected)

Feynman, R. P., R. B. Leighton and M. Sands. 1965. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Hawking, S. W. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam Books, 87.

Humphreys, D. R. 1994. Starlight and Time. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 67.

Humphreys, D. R. 2007. Creationist cosmologies explain the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer spacecraft. Journal of Creation. 21 (2): 61-70.

Humphreys, D. R. 2008. New time dilation helps creation cosmology. Journal of Creation. 22 (3): 84-92. Available on creation.com.

Vardiman, L. and D. R. Humphreys. 2010. A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1. Acts & Facts. 39 (11): 12-15.

Vardiman, L. and D. R. Humphreys. 2011. A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2. Acts & Facts. 40 (1): 12-15.

Sunday, January 02, 2011

Evolutionists argue that Design is only "Apparent"

The teaching of evolution today is that nature’s design is all an illusion that stems from a purposeless process driven by a “Natural Selector” (Hanke, 2004).

This is truly doublespeak that is not worthy of Science. It is an evasive maneuver to say that the purpose of an eagle’s wing cannot be known and that the synchronized movement of all its precisely fitted parts is only an “illusion of design”. How much better would scientists be if they were set free to allow design when they see design? Their research is held hostage by the philosophy of "Naturalism", which declares that any talk of intelligent design is out of bounds for scientists to speak of. Naturalism itself is an unscientific premise!
 
How can we bring mainstream scientists to see that Naturalism is standing in the way of truth? Dr. Randy Guliuzza, in his article Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design, offers advise on how to engage with evolutionists on this issue:

In a conversation about the best explanation for the origin of nature’s design, first expose the weakness of the assertion that design is “only an illusion.” Recount how evolutionists rely on a mindless iterative process to accumulate genetic mistakes “favored” by totally imaginary forces from their stand-in god, natural selection. The impotence of this mechanism always forces them to make conclusions far exceeding what the data support. Consequently, they resort to “counter-intuitive” scenarios that are “mystifying to the uninitiated,” full of infinite numbers of self-creating universes where microscopic biological machines “self assemble” by “co-opting” “off the shelf parts,” leading to creatures with “ghost lineages” that magically “arise” or “burst onto the scene.” So even if the evolutionist doesn’t ask “can you offer something better?”…do it anyway.

Creationists can show that nature’s design has features associated with those known only to be derived from real designers. Support is based on actual observations of living things’ intricately arranged parts, plans and specifications reflected in DNA’s information, and many examples of all-or-nothing unity. This truth frees researchers to expect that nature is a product of a rational, coherent design, a path that will lead to research that is once again open to fresh insights into nature. In biology, discovering purposes is better than forcing the absurdity that purpose is unknowable. Real design is the better scientific explanation, and free minds are better than imprisoned minds.
(For the entire article, see Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D., Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, January 2011.)

References (selected)

Hanke, D. 2004. Teleology: The explanation that bedevils biology. In Explanations: Styles of explanation in science. Cornwell, J., ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 143-155.

Friday, December 31, 2010

Beware New Science Curricula for Christian Schools!

The BioLogos Forum, founded by Dr. Francis Collins (President Obama's pick to head the National Institutes of Health), is aggressively leading the charge into biblical compromise. BioLogos teaches that the Bible is not completely without error, that Adam was symbolic and not real, and that Genesis does not teach the creation of the material world. On their website they announce that if Christians today do not accept the theory of evolution, the Church will die off in the form of an insignificant cult!

BioLogos is conducting workshops for Christian school science teachers in order to train them how to teach evolution to their students - to supposedly harmonize the Bible and Darwinian evolution in the classroom. They are also developing an evolution-based science curriculum for use in homeschools and Christian schools. One of the BioLogos teachers, Dr. Peter Enns [recently terminated by Westminster Theological Seminary for his views that are contrary to Biblical Inerrancy - MM], is even developing a Bible story curriculum for children! Anticipated to release in February 2011, this material is being published by homeschool guru Susan Wise Bauer. Parents, beware! BioLogos is also leading and participating in Christian conferences to influence pastors and other Christian leaders with the message that the Bible and evolution are compatible.

There is a Biblical alternative for Christian schools. In Fall 2010, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) launched Science Education Essentials, a new line of science curriculum supplements that cover topics with a crucial bearing on creation and evolution. Five modules are now available:
    Science Education Essentials
    for Christian Schools
  • The Origin of Life
  • The Structure of Matter
  • Human Heredity
  • Genetic Diversity
  • Geologic Processes
Each module includes a Teacher Content Book that allows K-12 science teachers to absorb the facts related to the topic, as well as a Resources CD-ROM that contains activity sheets, reproducible lab experiments, and PowerPoint presentations ready for teachers to use in the classroom. Each educational level was pilot tested with real teachers and their students on every science topic, allowing ICR's faculty to fine-tune these materials for maximum impact. Teachers may visit http://icr.org/essentials to learn more about this exciting new resource.

(Lawrence E. Ford, Executive Editor, "Confronting Evolutionary Ideas", Acts & Facts, January 2011, Institute of Creation Research)

Evangelical Seminaries and the Biblical Doctrine of Creation

What is most disturbing in our culture today is the way in which the Darwinian belief system - the "religion" of Darwin - has influenced those who name the name of Christ, even those calling themselves "evangelicals." For instance, two or three decades ago there were dozens of private Christian colleges that maintained a biblical doctrine of creation. Today, only a handful have resisted compromise.

Evangelical seminaries today are filled with professors who have compromised the biblical text. They train pastors that it's okay to teach evolutionary ideas - the Big Bang, millions and billions of years, common ancestry, etc. - to their congregations. Leaning on the understanding of men (who happen to wear lab coats and have impressive letters behind their names), these professors and pastors have opted not to lean on the understanding of God, placing science over Scripture when they open the book of Genesis.

(Lawrence E. Ford, Executive Editor, "Confronting Evolutionary Ideas", Acts & Facts, January 2011, Institute of Creation Research)

Why are Darwinists so Adamant?

Most scientists today refuse to acknowledge God as Creator, or even that the overwhelming evidence of design in the world around us points to any kind of Designer.

The Heavens declare the glory of God...
Admitting that there exists some sort of supernatural intelligence - a Creator - logically leads us to confront a Judge, and most people in the world are reluctant to face the One who will judge the intents of their hearts and punish their bad behavior.

Darwinism has thus given an "out" that sounds scientific to those who want to avoid confrontation with the eternal!

(Lawrence E. Ford, Executive Editor, "Confronting Evolutionary Ideas", Acts & Facts, January 2011, Institute of Creation Research)