Analysis of an AiG article

[shunyadragon]

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the logic AIG often uses on very difficult issues. I have placed the heart of the article here for people to read and refer to. The entire article and refereces is available from the AIG site.

Because of the heated nature of the 'Creation Science' vs. Evolution debate and the lack of communication between the two sides it would help to understand the logic of the 'Creation Science' view. A detailed discussion of on of their articles would help people understand what the issues are.

The next post will outline what I consider the weaknesses and my objections to this argument.


How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten

First published in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book
Chapter 5

If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past? Does this have anything to do with the big bang?

Some stars are millions of light-years away. Since a light-year is the distance traveled by light in one year, does this mean that the universe is very old?

Despite all the biblical and scientific evidence for a young earth/universe, this has long been a problem. However, any scientific understanding of origins will always have opportunities for research—problems that need to be solved. We can never have complete knowledge and so there will always be things to learn.



Note: The portion deleted here addresses discarded arguements used in past by Creationist. Interesting background, but not significant except for the 'created as is' to appear old is rejected.


A new creationist cosmology

Nevertheless, the c-decay theory stimulated much thinking about the issues. Creationist physicist Dr Russell Humphreys says that he spent a year on and off trying to get the declining c theory to work, but without success. However, in the process, he was inspired to develop a new creationist cosmology which appears to solve the problem of the apparent conflict with the Bible’s clear, authoritative teaching of a recent creation.

This new cosmology is proposed as a creationist alternative to the big bang theory. It passed peer review, by qualifying reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism.2 Young-earth creationists have been cautious about the model,3 which is not surprising with such an apparently radical departure from orthodoxy, but Humphreys has addressed the problems raised.4 Believers in an old universe and the big bang have vigorously opposed the new cosmology and claim to have found flaws in it.5 However, Humphreys has been able to defend his model, as well as develop it further.6 The debate will no doubt continue.

This sort of development, in which one creationist theory, c-decay, is overtaken by another, is a healthy aspect of science. The basic biblical framework is non-negotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).
A clue

Let us briefly give a hint as to how the new cosmology seems to solve the starlight problem before explaining some preliminary items in a little more detail. Consider that the time taken for something to travel a given distance is the distance divided by the speed it is traveling. That is:


Time = Distance / Speed

When this is applied to light from distant stars, the time calculates out to be millions of years. Some have sought to challenge the distances, but this is a very unlikely answer.7

Astronomers use many different methods to measure the distances, and no informed creationist astronomer would claim that any errors would be so vast that billions of light-years could be reduced to thousands, for example. There is good evidence that our own Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years across!

If the speed of light © has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself. In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.

Two things are believed (with experimental support) to distort time in relativity theory—one is speed and the other is gravity. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have at present, indicates that gravity distorts time.

This effect has been measured experimentally, many times. Clocks at the top of tall buildings, where gravity is slightly less, run faster than those at the bottom, just as predicted by the equations of general relativity (GR).8

When the concentration of matter is very large or dense enough, the gravitational distortion can be so immense that even light cannot escape.9 The equations of GR show that at the invisible boundary surrounding such a concentration of matter (called the event horizon, the point at which light rays trying to escape the enormous pull of gravity bend back on themselves), time literally stands still.

Using different assumptions …

Dr Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology literally ‘falls out’ of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge—that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space.

This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular (big bang) cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries—no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock? (If we say ‘God’s time’ we miss the point that He is outside of time, seeing the end from the beginning.)10

There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he ‘stretched out’11 (other verses say ‘spread out’) the heavens.

If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a ‘white hole’—a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR).

As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink—eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen. An observer on earth would not in any way ‘feel different.’ ‘Billions of years’ would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is traveling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc.—while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and ‘seen’ the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be traveling at c.

There is more detail of this new cosmology, at layman’s level, in the book by Dr Humphreys, Starlight and Time, which also includes reprints of his technical papers showing the equations.12

It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no ‘massaging’—the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’).

Caution

While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.

What if no one had ever thought of the possibility of gravitational time dilation? Many might have felt forced to agree with those scientists (including some Christians) that there was no possible solution —the vast ages are fact, and the Bible must be ‘reinterpreted’ (massaged) or increasingly rejected. Many have in fact been urging Christians to abandon the Bible’s clear teaching of a recent creation [see Q&A: Genesis] because of these ‘undeniable facts.’ This reinterpretation also means having to accept that there were billions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed before Adam, thus eroding the creation/Fall/restoration framework within which the gospel is presented in the Bible.

However, even without this new idea, such an approach would still have been wrong-headed. The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals. One little previously unknown fact, or one change in a starting assumption, can drastically alter the whole picture so that what was ‘fact’ is no longer so.

This is worth remembering when dealing with those other areas of difficulty which, despite the substantial evidence for Genesis creation, still remain. Only God possesses infinite knowledge. By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality.

[shunyadragon]

Originally Posted by shunyadragon The purpose of this thread is to analyze the logic AIG often uses on very difficult issues. I have placed the heart of the article here for people to read and refer to. The entire article and refereces is available from the AIG site.

The following is my first summary of the weaknesses concerning this AIG arguement.

A new creationist cosmology

The beginning of this section describes Dr. Russell Humphrey's efforts focused specifically trying to 'prove declining c theory to work, but without success.', which demonstrates a weakness in AIG's scientific method. Your goal should not be to prove a preconcieved belief.

The statement that "The basic biblical framework is non-negotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework . . ." removes from the arguement any objective consideration of science.

(evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).

False, evolutionist often admit mistakes and change their views based on progressive research. Evolutionists do not believe things made themselves.

A clue Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.

The first clue in the arguement is to view time as not constant 'using' Einstein's relativity theory and that gravity distorts time.

Next the subject of the event horizon, the point at which light rays trying to escape the enormous pull of gravity bend back on themselves), time literally stands still. is added.

Using different assumptions

Next Dr. Humphrey 'new creationist cosmology 'falls out', based on the assumption that the universe is finite and has a boundary, accusing the cosmologist of making false assumptions that there are no boundaries. The reality is that whether the universe or existence composed of more than one universe is finite or infinite is unknown.

However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock? (If we say ‘God’s time’ we miss the point that He is outside of time, seeing the end from the beginning.)

Skews the question on time as science observes it and God's time. This allows an infinite amount flexability in logic.

There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he ‘stretched out’11 (other verses say ‘spread out’) the heavens.

Willing to accept some scientific evidence adjusted to fit the Bible.

If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a ‘white hole’—a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR). As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink—eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen. An observer on earth would not in any way ‘feel different.’ ‘Billions of years’ would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is traveling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc.—while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

This is where the misuse of 'time dilation and event horizon' shifts into high gear and billions of years are going to squeezed into one day.

It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem.

This never prevented AIG from manipulating the data in the past.

The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no ‘massaging’—the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’).

Wooooo! I would like to see a reference from any cosmologist outside AIG that would touch this with a ten foot pole.

Caution

Since no caution was used before I am surprized the subject was brought up.

While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men . . . at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.

Does the above arguement real reflect demonstrated, with considerable . . .?

What if no one had ever thought of the possibility of gravitational time dilation? Many might have felt forced to agree with those scientists (including some Christians) that there was no possible solution —the vast ages are fact, and the Bible must be ‘reinterpreted’ (massaged) or increasingly rejected. Many have in fact been urging Christians to abandon the Bible’s clear teaching of a recent creation.

It would be very unfortunate that people to have to accept the reality of a universe billions of years old.

. . . because of these ‘undeniable facts.’ This reinterpretation also means having to accept that there were billions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed before Adam, thus eroding the creation/Fall/restoration framework within which the gospel is presented in the Bible.

Thank goodness this releaves humanity from billions? of years of death, disease and bloodshed before Adam.

However, even without this new idea, such an approach would still have been wrong-headed. The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals. One little previously unknown fact, or one change in a starting assumption, can drastically alter the whole picture so that what was ‘fact’ is no longer so.

Regardless of whether this arguement is true or false, the authority of the Bible should (must?) never be compromised . . .

This is the bottom line of all 'Creation Science' arguements. Why bother with science?

[Sonart]

Quite a fascinating discussion, Shunya, although I'm afraid I can't add much. This is all a bit deeper than I tend to go. However, it did remind me of a similar anecdote, a sort of parallel tangent, so to speak. I've touched on it before, but, well...

About six months ago a friend lent me the CD set of Steven Hawking narrating his 'Theory of Everything', first published in 1996. Hawking devoted a chapter to the Big Bang, the theories that led up to it, competing theories and the current consensus. Among them was the fairly accepted idea that the Universe is expanding, but that at some point gravity will cause it to stop expanding and eventually to collapse back on itself, leading to... who knows... maybe another Big Bang.

What was significant about this to Hawking was the mathematics. In order for the Universe to reach a point at which a life-bearing planet Earth was possible required a window of opportunity so incredibly small as to begger probability. A micro-fraction of a second earlier and the Universe would have already collapsed back upon itself. A micro-fraction of a second later and the Universe would have expanded beyond the point where galaxies and solar systems could survive. With a mathematicians mind, Hawking could only reach one conclusion. The probability was so incredibly small that it could only have happened by design.

There was, however, one option that reduced the probability down to a very acceptable range, but it was a theory that no one was offering because it simply did not fit within the astrophysics as understood in 1996.... that the Universe was not only expanding, but accelerating.

Well guess what.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Sonart, Quite a fascinating discussion, Shunya, although I'm afraid I can't add much. This is all a bit deeper than I tend to go. However, it did remind me of a similar anecdote, a sort of parallel tangent, so to speak. I've touched on it before, but, well... About six months ago a friend lent me the CD set of Steven Hawking narrating his 'Theory of Everything', first published in 1996. Hawking devoted a chapter to the Big Bang, the theories that led up to it, competing theories and the current consensus. Among them was the fairly accepted idea that the Universe is expanding, but that at some point gravity will cause it to stop expanding and eventually to collapse back on itself, leading to... who knows... maybe another Big Bang. What was significant about this to Hawking was the mathematics. In order for the Universe to reach a point at which a life-bearing planet Earth was possible required a window of opportunity so incredibly small as to begger probability. A micro-fraction of a second earlier and the Universe would have already collapsed back upon itself. A micro-fraction of a second later and the Universe would have expanded beyond the point where galaxies and solar systems could survive. With a mathematicians mind, Hawking could only reach one conclusion. The probability was so incredibly small that it could only have happened by design. There was, however, one option that reduced the probability down to a very acceptable range, but it was a theory that no one was offering because it simply did not fit within the astrophysics as understood in 1996.... that the Universe was not only expanding, but accelerating. Well guess what.

Good information. I think I will start a thread or two on the Big Bang.

[samsara15]

Interesting logic, but it misses a connection between the Bible and reality. By what non-circular logic do we define the Bible as infallible? Does point out the AiG people are not dummies. Speed can only be defined in terms of time and (presumed) distance, and therefore is redundant. Einstein's equations include a correction for the speed of light.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by samsara15, Interesting logic, but it misses a connection between the Bible and reality. By what non-circular logic do we define the Bible as infallible? Does point out the AiG people are not dummies. Speed can only be defined in terms of time and (presumed) distance, and therefore is redundant. Einstein's equations include a correction for the speed of light.

I do not consider time and distance redundent. How do you do that?

I am not sure how I would describe AiG. They have an audience that will buy the product before it is even offered, therefore the quality of the product is not an issue. They apparently can say anything they want to about science, because it will be believed as long as the get the Bible straight.