Evolution theory is still a work in progress.
I'm concentrating on arguing my best position to attack creationism
as the evangelicals see it.
So, you dismiss my refutation of your speculation-without-evidence with a casual wave of the keyboard by escaping with 'it's a work in progress,' but you get to call evangelicals ludicrous? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I'm using the best argument that contradicts the 6000 year assumption.
If I can knock down that part then there is no need to attack the rest.
If the evangelicals would concede that point then it would be harder to laugh about and dismiss evangelical creationism outright.
My view is that the universe is God, the giver of life and creator of everything, but not a personal God that cares about and passes judgement on his creation(s)
Do you realize that your argument is self-refuting and completely unscientific? And you mock the evangelicals...that's rich.
Nevertheless, I'll present my explanation, but if you don't then respond with an explanation that addresses my arguments, then I will conclude you have no knowledge of this issue and are only interested in mocking. Of course, you've all but admitted that already, haven't you?
***
If the light has been traveling for billions of years, then surely the universe has been around that long, hasn’t it? Interestingly, the evolutionary cosmologists have a related problem called the “horizon problem.” One of the most famous evidences for a big bang cosmology is the presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which comes from all parts of the sky with incredible uniformity (1 part in 100,000). This radiation is supposedly the left over “heat” from the early stages of the big bang. As the universe expanded over billions of years, everything cooled down (except for stars and galaxies!), leaving the universe in radiative thermal equilibrium.
But there’s a problem. The universe is now at least 50 billion light years across (estimates vary), yet is allegedly “only” 14 billion years old. For equilibrium to occur there must be continual interchange of energy among all regions enjoying that equilibrium. Yet the speed of light is nowhere fast enough to produce that equilibrium for such a huge universe. Furthermore, the uniformity was a shock to cosmologists because of the serious “lumpiness” of the universe. Galaxies are “lumps” and are lumped into clusters of galaxies which are distributed (lumped) in nonuniform ways throughout the universe.
The evolutionists’ ad hoc way around this problem is termed
“inflation.” When the universe was VERY young and VERY small, it may have lingered long enough in this state (10^-35 seconds) to achieve thermal equilibrium, and then the universe expanded (inflated) much faster than the speed of light for a time (“FTL” on a universal scale!), then dropped out of FTL and resumed the current normal expansion. The
speculative details keep changing, but anyone with any scientific training should appreciate the
imaginative ad hoc inventions used to avoid the bigger problem – Big Bang cosmology is a bad model. Just consider a short list of the unexplainables:
1. Out of nothingness (get your head around that!) popped the entire universe with space, time, and all of its carefully balanced physical laws and variety of interacting particles. How? Why?
There is no science supporting this point.
2. This universe-crammed-into-a-point decided to expand. How? Why?
There is no science supporting this point.
3. Once the right mix of particles and radiation achieved thermal equilibrium, the universe decided to accelerate its expansion far beyond the speed of light. How? Why?
There is no science supporting this point.
4. When the universe got to a size so that we could eventually enjoy it, it dropped out of hyper-speed. How? Why?
There is no science supporting this point.
5. Matter coalesced into nice tidy stars arranged into picturesque, orderly galaxies. How? Why? There is no science supporting this point.
6. Some of the matter coalesced into nice tidy planets arranged into picturesque, orderly solar systems. How? Why?
There is no science supporting this point.
7. The universe continue to expand at a reduced (from before), but still accelerating rate. How and Why is it still accelerating?
There is no science supporting this point.
The continued accelerating expansion is “explained” by the presence of “dark energy” in the universe. What is dark energy? It must be a “negative” energy, because the gravitational acceleration from all the matter of all the galaxies would produce DEceleration, not acceleration. How can energy be negative? Nobody knows. Just what/why/where is dark energy?
There is no science.
Furthermore, galaxies exhibit rotational structure (orbits of stars) that just can’t exist for a universe billions of years old. And galactic clusters have similar problems. Thus “dark matter” is invoked to explain observables that just can’t be in an evolutionary universe.
It’s fascinating. Cosmologists estimate (in order to make their models believable) that dark energy accounts for 73% of all the stuff/energy in the universe, that dark matter must account for 23%, and the stars/galaxies make up the other 4%.
Evolutionists proclaim that their cosmology/philosophy is FACT, and yet they have not observed the first two (96% of everything!) and still have no credible science supporting the formation of the remaining 4%.
Now that’s a long discussion to make the point that
although creationists have a real challenge – worthy of continued research – to lock down the speed of light problem, the “other side” is sunk without a trace.
So how are creationists doing on their problem?
Russ Humphreys (see ref below) has developed a “white hole” cosmology, using the theory of general relativity. This cosmology assumes a center of expansion and a bounded, finite universe. (Big bangers assume no center and no edge – get your head around that!) With the Biblical book of Genesis in mind, Humphreys postulates a universe that is localized to within a few light years of earth, which then expands continuously until the present day. At the center of this gravitational well, clocks run slower, while in the expanding universe they run faster at the edges. Expansion produces the red shifts that we presently observe in astronomy. The results from general relativity allow the entire process to take place in days (under a guided hand – God’s), while up to several hundred million years (NOT many billions!) of time tick by in far away galaxies. This allows for some galactic rotation and distant events such as supernovas without the destruction of spiral structures that would occur in a billions-of-years-old universe.
There is much more to this, of course, and many issues to investigate both mathematically and observationally, and that’s why Humphreys has written a book on the subject. Please check it out.
Another book-length creationist treatment is available by John Hartnett. Hartnett employs Einstein’s general relativity, plus modifications of the theory generated by Moshe Carmeli in the 1990s, and constrains it to a Biblical time frame. His theory also involves accelerated clocks in the distant universe, and is able to explain much of what astronomers observe in galactic/universal structure while avoiding ideas like dark matter and dark energy.
In both of the models of Humphreys and Hartnett are found solutions to the speed of light problem – namely, that within the bounds of known physics (general relativity), the earth and universe are young (by earth clocks) and yet we enjoy distant starlight.
CAUTIONARY NOTE: Getting your head around these theories will require some real work on your part. You’ll probably want to have taken at least graduate work in physics if you really want to check these guys out.
The main point is that there are dueling cosmologies out there and the creationist view should not be dismissed out of hand.
[Much of the above summary was contributed by my father]
Paul M. Steidl, “The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible,” Baker Book House, 1979.
D. Russell Humphreys, “Evidence for a Young World,” Creation Matters, a publication of the Creation Research Society, July/August 1999.
D. Russell Humphries, Starlight and Time – Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, 1998.
Jean-Marc Perelmuter, “Chiaroscuro in Space: The Suggestion of Matter Bears Much Meaning for the Universe,” Fox News on the web, 8.00 a.m. ET (1200 GMT) July 14, 1999.
John Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Ministries International, 2007.
Alex Williams and John Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang – God’s Universe Rediscovered, Master Books, 2005.
Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise – A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of Progressive Creationism (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross, Master Books, 2004.