Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Evolutionist science journal gives exciting support to creationist cosmology!

Expand Messages
  • Lowell Baker
    Subject: [OriginsNews] Evolutionist science journal gives exciting support to creationist cosmology! My Groups | OriginsNews Main Page Evolutionist science
    Message 1 of 74 , Nov 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Subject: [OriginsNews] Evolutionist science journal gives exciting support to creationist cosmology!

      Evolutionist science journal gives exciting support to creationist cosmology!

      Is the wind beginning to shift against the big bang?

      by Carl Wieland, AiG-Australia

      6 October 2003

      The prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has published a revolutionary paper1 which (probably unwittingly) gives powerful support to the basic principles of Dr Russell Humphreys' creationist cosmology.

      Humphreys' proposal, which sought to solve the 'light-travel-time' problem, is set out in the popular-level (with technical appendix) book Starlight and Time2.  Because it starts with different assumptions from the standard 'big bang' notion, applying the same mathematical 'machinery' provides startlingly different conclusions.  Now the establishment seems prepared to consider that the foundational beliefs of big bang thinking may be radically wrong.

      For more information on the latest in creationist cosmology, see Dr Humphreys' book, Starlight and Time, available from our bookstore.

      The standard assumption upon which big bang thinking is built (an assumption is a belief for which there is no proof either way) is that the universe does not have a center or an edge.  Smoller and Temple's paper assumes the opposite, just as does Humphreys in Starlight and Time.  And just as Humphreys' model has the universe expanding out of a white hole (a black hole running in reverse) so too does their paper! 

      (In their model, the event horizon (the hypothetical boundary around a black or white hole at which time slows down dramatically) is still 'out there', whereas Humphreys has it touching the earth during Creation Week.  So the Smoller-Temple paper is not concerned with time dilation.) 

      In a number of other areas, too, the Smoller-Temple paper gets into issues that Humphreys has already published on in the creationist literature.  For instance, their consideration of the shock waves in such an expanding cosmos was raised by Humphreys as a possible explanation of the 'concentric shells' distribution of the galaxies. (This is powerful evidence that there is indeed a center (and hence an edge) to the universe, and, more than that, it indicates that our galaxy must be somewhere near that center.3)

      Physicist Dr John Hartnett has written4 of his conviction that 1994, the date of publication of Humphreys' cosmology, will go down as a momentous time in the history of the creationist movement.  Critically examining the foundational assumptions of big bang thinking and introducing the notion of relativistic time dilation was, he believes, crucial to launching an exciting new era of creationist cosmologies and models which overcome the light-travel time problem (a problem which big-bangers also have, incidentally-the so-called 'horizon problem'5).6 

      All this is exciting news indeed, and a strong vindication of the direction of Humphreys' cosmology.  But it also has powerful implications for the 'progressive creationist' compromises that have seemed so beguiling to many evangelical thinkers.  In such views, most prominently represented by Dr Hugh Ross of the Reasons to Believe ministry, big bang cosmology, with its philosophical assumptions, is foundational and crucial.  The very fact that such a prestigious establishment journal now publishes such a major departure from (and challenge to) these very assumptions should be incredibly sobering for those who have been prepared to depart from the obvious and straightforward words of the Bible to bow to establishment thinking on the big bang and its billions of years.  Russell Humphreys has commented on this issue as follows:

      'Dr. Ross has (a) founded his theology on the big bang theory, (b) made a career of criticizing my "white-hole" cosmology, and (c) always shifted his course to conform to the latest winds of doctrine from the cosmology establishment.  Now that those winds have (at least temporarily) veered toward a creationist view, will he now change his course?'7 

      The purpose is, of course, not any sort of personal critique, but a highlighting of the principles involved.  Science keeps on changing.  If we marry our interpretation of God's Word to today's science, we will be out of step tomorrow; 'but the word of the Lord stands forever' (1 Peter 1:25).

      References and notes

      1. Smoller, J. and Temple, B, Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole, Proceedings of the National Academy of  Sciences 100(20):11216-11218, 30 September 2003. 
      2. Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994.  Available from our web bookstore.
      3. Humphreys, D. Russell, Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show, TJ 16(2):95-104, 2002. 
      4. Hartnett, J., personal communication, September 2003.
      5. Newton, R., Light-travel time: a problem for the 'big bang', Creation 25(4): 48-49, 2003.
      6. Humphreys has long seen his work as only the beginning, and Hartnett is one of those who has put forward modifications and refinements of the Humphreys model.
      7. In a press release emailed September 2003




      Physics, Cosmology and the Big Bang

      Christopher W. Ashcraft

      Creation Science Resource

      To unsubscribe from this Newsletter, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • tinroad66
      ... journal gives exciting support to creationist cosmology! ... supported by ... about what science is all about. When facts have been established by
      Message 74 of 74 , Nov 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton"
        <lappleto@o...> wrote:
        > Hi tin,
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: tinroad66
        > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:07 AM
        > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Evolutionist science
        journal gives exciting support to creationist cosmology!
        > tinroad66 said:
        > Scientific discipline refers to the community of scientists
        > within that discipline. They, as a collective community, come to
        > general agreement about what seems to be contradicted or
        supported by
        > the facts.
        > >
        > LA> In those terms you have displayed your complete confusion
        about what science is all about. When facts have been established
        by repeatable scientific experiments, there is really no need
        for "agreements" as such at all.

        Tin: Poor Laurie he hasn't a clue. Scientists in every field are
        constantly evaluating their subject matter and testing ideas against
        the facts. Data from laboratory exeriments need explanations. ((How
        can Laurie NOT know that ?)) The explanations are put in the
        mainstream peer reviewed journals and over time a consensus
        develops. All sciences work this way.

        > LA> Those sort of "agreements" would apply to NON scientific
        affairs, such as are encountered all the time in Politics!

        Tin: Ignore the non-scientific stuff, let's focus on the science.
        All relevant scientific disciplines have concluded that creationism
        is wrong. There is not one mainstream, peer reviewed, journal ---
        even the very worst journal with the lowest of standards --- can find
        enough merit in any major creationist idea to publish it.
        Creationism has suffered such a complete and total defeat that they
        have given up and started their own evangelical "journals."
        Creationism is irrelevant to science.

        To what do you attribute the extraordinary failure of creationism ?

        > Tin: Please give us the mainstream peer reviewed scientific
        > article within the last ten years concluding that the human
        > is less than 10kyo. Just one will do.
        > >
        > LA> The simple facts are that there is really no such thing
        as "mainstream scientific journals". What you appear to be referring
        to are, without argument, little more than the "captives" of the
        evolutionist establishment. They have long since lost the status of a
        forum for anything else!

        Tin: Note Laurie's failure to answer the question, as usual.

        So Laurie do you admit that creationism has been completely defeated
        in these journals ?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.