Previous attempts at reconciliation
Relativity and time
Implications of observed time
Which is correct?
Conventions of time measurement
The Biblical convention
An alternative perspective
Summary and conclusions
Anisotropy Synchrony Convention
- Humphreys, D.R., Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994.
- Einstein, A., Relativity, The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 15thedition, 1959.
- The speed of light for any given angle as measured in observed time is:
- Nissim-Sabat, C., A Gedanken experiment to measure the one-way velocity of light, British Journal of Philosophy of Science 35:62-64, 1984. (The claim is shown to be flawed in the following Ref. 5 and 6.)
- Norton, J., The quest for the one-way velocity of light, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 37:118-120, 1986.
- Ohrstrom, P., Nissim-Sabat on the one-way velocity of light, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 37:120-122, 1986.
- The conversion between the calculated time (tc) and the observed time (to) of an event is: tc = to - r/c0 where r is the distance to the event and c0 is the (two-way time averaged) speed of light.
- Anderson, R., Vetharaniam, I. and Stedman, G.E., Conventionality of synchronisation, gauge dependence and test theories of Relativity,Physics Reports 295:93-180, 1998.
- Winnie, J., Special Relativity without one-way velocity assumptions: part I, Philosophy of Science 37:81-99, 1970.
- Winnie, J., Special Relativity without one-way velocity assumptions: part II, Philosophy of Science 37:223-238, 1970.
- Salmon, W.C., The philosophical significance of the one-way speed of light: Nous 11(3):253-292, Symposium on Space and Time, 1977.
- Malament, D., Causal theories of time and the conventionality of simultaneity: Nous 11(3):293-300, Symposium on Space and Time, 1977.
- Sarkar, S., and Stachel, J., Did Malament prove the non-conventionality of simultaneity in the Special Theory of Relativity? Philosophy of Science 66:208-220, 1999.
- To avoid being overly technical, I have ignored the relativistic time-dilation due to the expansion of the universe. This effect is small for nearby galaxies, but becomes increasingly large for distant sections of space. The effect is not relevant to the fundamental concepts addressed in this paper.
- The most distant stars would appear younger than 6,000 years due to relativistic time-dilation caused by the expansion of the universe.
- Job 38:4.
God claims to have both stretched and to have continued to stretch the Universe. That explains the CBR "problem" if you accept that God created rather than some uncaused inexplicable Bang. There are other viewpoints coming to add to your many explanations given to you in school, explanations that do not fit the evidence at all!
It is very interesting that the Solar System does appear to be very young, based upon all the space missions we have launched in the last 40-some years. Naturalists refuse to admit this, always claiming to be working on yet another hypothesis that will explain all the anomalies involved. Since the Sun and the Moon and the planets and their moons and the comets all appear to be relatively young (thousands rather than millions of years old) one does have to admit that the above hypothesis solves that problem neatly. God did indeed create the Solar System about 6,000 years ago. It fits the evidence. See below...
belief in a recent creation. Much of the evidence in support of a recent creation simply put an upper limit on the age of the Earth, solar system, or even universe, which are inconsistent with an ancient creation. For example, Russell Humphreys' argument based on the amount of salt in the ocean is designed to show the maximum possible age of the oceans based on uniformitarian assumptions, and thus shows that the oceans could not be as old as claimed; it is not designed to show the actual age of the oceans, and as such the resulting age, although far too great for the young Earth view, is not inconsistent with it.
CometsComets are enormous balls composed of dirt and ice, are numerous in the cosmos. In the solar system, a great number travel in elliptical paths around the sun, bringing them very close to the sun for brief periods of time. Every time a comet approaches the sun, the solar radiation blasts away some of the comet's icy material. Comets then can only orbit around the sun for at best 100,000 years before they disappear entirely, yet there are still many comets orbiting the sun. With secular astronomers teaching that the solar system is 4.5 billions of years old, they must explain this inconsistency.
The current theory is an "Oort cloud", which is a "vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun." It is suggested that an occasional icy mass from this cloud enters the inner solar system and becomes a comet. As of yet, there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of an Oort cloud, so it is all educated conjecture at this point in time.
Scientists also propose a Kuiper belt that does exist, but it cannot be the source of the comets having the longest periods. Furthermore, a number of families of comets exists that have aphelia even shorter than the average radius of the Kuiper belt. Nor has anyone proposed a workable mechanism by which Kuiper belt objects could fall out of the belt and into the inner solar system on the highly elliptical orbits that comets have.
In 1984 paleontologists David Raup and Jack Sepkowski announced their hypothesis that extinction-level events occurred every 26 million years. Then the astronomer Richard A. Muller proposed the existence of a companion star, named Nemesis, that had an orbital period of 26 million years and a perihelion that took it inside the Oort cloud to send devastating showers of comets into the inner solar system. Astronomers have thus far failed to sight any such star.
Walt Brown has propounded a radical theory according to which comets have their origin in the earth itself, and particularly in the global flood.
Magnetic field decay
- Main Article: Geomagnetic field decay
The decay in the Earth's magnetic field is a significant indicator that the solar system cannot be old. They claim that it is lessening too rapidly. Secular scientists have hypothesized that the field reverses itself every certain number of years or else it has freely decayed from a higher value. The latter theory is considered untenable (by scientists on both sides) due both to the extreme effect ultra high fields in the past would have had on life and to the archaeological evidence that the field has apparently changed polarity. A great deal of speculation has ensued on both sides, as it is unclear how often the field reverses and by what mechanism. Talk.Origins offers a typical response to this claim. CreationWiki offers this response in turn. Jonathan Sarfati offers further information.
Russell Humphreys in 1984 developed a magnetic field creation model that assumes that God made all celestial bodies initially of water and then transmuted them to their present composition after the magnetic fields were established. He thus could calculate the total magnetic dipole moment of any celestial body at creation and set limits on the magnetic decay time, half life, and core conductivity of that body.
Humphreys used his model to make predictions for the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus, and published these prior to the measurement of those fields by Voyager 2. In fact, Voyager 2 validated Humphreys' predictions and embarrassed uniformitarians, who failed to predict that either Uranus or Neptune would have a magnetic field at all.
- Main Article: Moon Recession
Both creation and secular scientists have indicated that there is a problem with the distance the moon is from the Earth. In particular, its rate of departure seems high. This was noted by Kerr in a 1983 article for Science magazine. Donald DeYoung extrapolated plots of lunar distance in 1990. When new data was found using putatively old varves, DeYoung's extrapolation was supported. The problem is that this appears to put the Moon in contact with the earth only 1.5 billion years ago. Thompson, writing at Talk.Origins, suggests that DeYoung's model does not take dissipation and deformation appropriately into consideration.
- Main Article: Moon dust
However, most creationists now recognize the argument to be outdated and advise not to use it. In April, 1993, Dr. Andrew Snelling and David E. Rush published an extensive, in-depth analysis of the issue in the Journal of Creation, 1993. In addition to reviewing data from chemical analysis of deep sea sediments & dust in polar ice and satellite observations, Snelling and Rush survey the literature on moon dust, providing a thorough assessment of the issue.
Faint young sun paradoxThe sun is powered by nuclear reactions which gradually burn up the sun's fuel and shrinks its core. As this occurs, the nuclear fusion should occur more readily and expel even more amounts of energy, causing the sun to shine brighter even as it ages. This also means that the sun was much dimmer in the past, but on a timescale of 3.8 billion years (the time when evolutionists believe life began on earth) the sun should have been 25% fainter back then. If this were the case, the earth would be frozen around –3ºC; also, the majority of paleontologists believe that the earth was warmer, not cooler, in the past.
- Main Article: Helioseismology
Interplanetary dustCreationists have indicated that there is too much interplanetary dust in the solar system. The solar wind, solar gravitation and the Poynting-Robertson effect remove dust from the solar system, while comets and asteroids can contribute to the dust. An argument was issued by Robertson and Slusher in a 100 page monograph confirming that equations derived nearly fifty years earlier were essentially correct and the solar system was limited to a few thousand years without some hitherto unknown massive replacement method. At least half of this conclusion is supported by secular scientists who hold that the lifespan for a typical dust particle is about 10,000 years.
Mainstream scientists have not suggested other major sources of dust, and so one must assume they consider the dust created by meteors and comets sufficient.
A related, but qualitatively different, argument based on flux of particles (not their lifetime) has been largely abandoned by creation scientists.
Lunar surface ghost cratersThe moon has numerous "ghost craters" on its surface, suggesting an inexplicably long time between the moon's initial cooling and a later lava overflow. Creationists, such as Danny Faulkner, also object to the standard timeline for lunar evolution because they claim these ghost craters should be more plainly visible. This is discussed in brief by Fryman and in more detail by Faulkner himself.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Does the Bible say anything about astronomy? Dr. Jason Lisle, War of the Worldviews. 2005.
- ↑ Raup, D. M., and Sepkowski, J. J. "Periodicity of extinctions in the geologic past." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 81(3):801-805, February 1984. doi:10.1073/pnas.81.3.801. Accessed June 10, 2008.
- ↑ Muller, Richard A., ed. "Nemesis." n.d. Accessed June 10, 2008.
- ↑ Brown, Walter. "The Origin of Comets." In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, online book, 1995-2008. Accessed July 20, 2008.
- ↑ Claim CD701: The earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate indicating that the earth must be young. Talk.Origins
- ↑ Sarfati, Jonathan. "The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young." Creation, 20(2):15-17, March 1998. Accessed August 14, 2008.
- ↑ Humphreys, D. R. "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields." Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.
- ↑ Humphreys, D. R. "Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation." Institute for Creation Research. Accessed April 30, 2008
- ↑ The moon: the light that rules the night Jonathan Sarfati. Creation 20(4):36–39. September 1998.
- ↑ Thompson, Tim. "The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System." Talk.Origins, 2000. Accessed August 14, 2008.
- ↑ Some Astronomical Evidences For A Youthful Solar System by Harold S. Slusher, M.S., Creation Research Society Quarterly Volume 8(1) June, 1971.
- ↑ Morris, Henry. 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p 152.
- ↑ Arguments we think creationists should NOT use Creation Ministries International, Accessed May 13, 2010.
- ↑ Moon dust and the age of the solar system by Dr Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush. Journal of Creation 7(1):2–42, April 1993.
- ↑ Our steady sun: a problem for billions of years by Jonathan Sarfati. Creation 26(3):52–53. June 2004.
- ↑ Snelling, Andrew A., and Rush, David E. "AiG Moon dust and the age of the solar system." Journal of Creation 7(1):2–42. April 1993
- ↑ Fryman, Helen. "Ghost Craters in the Sky: Is the Man in the Moon Telling us Something?" True Origin, 1998. Accessed August 14, 2008.
- ↑ Faulkner, Danny.A Biblically-based cratering theory. Journal of Creation 13(1):100-104, April 1999.