Starlight Within a Young Universe

It has been a challenge within the Christian community to come up with an answer to the question: "If the earth is only a few thousand years old, how do you explain the millions of years it takes for light from distant stars to reach earth?".I want to talk about two cosmologies; a well known cosmology, the Big Bang, and the creationists cosmology that D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. has put forth.There is a book called "Starlight and Time; Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe" by Humphreys himself. This talks both about the Big Bang and his cosmology.The Big Bang, if I am correct, says that space AND matter are expanding. But also that matter goes out to infinity in any direction.
That in the beginning of the big bang, matter was more dense and hotter, but still goes out to infinity. Space itself was smaller in the beginning as well. It stretches and matter stretches with it. Like blowing into a balloon that has dots that represent galaxies on it expand as the balloon (space) expands. The dots are evenly spread out over the surface of the balloon. The balloon's surface is a 2-d representation of the 3-d universe to explain a 4-d universe in 3-d. the fourth dimension is not time. Humphrey uses the balloon to make it easier to understand.Humphreys cosmology is similar to this, except there is a center and a edge to the universe. But space and matter also expand. Consider the same balloon except the dots are located at one spot on the balloon.From what I understand is that the physics both cosmologies use, are IDENTICAL, like general relativity. The only difference is the starting assumptions.The Big Bang uses the starting assumption that the universe has no edge, and therefore has no center. But Humphreys assumption is this, that the stars are numbered, that is the universe has an edge, and therefore has a center. And we are close to the middle of it. Since matter distorts space, the whole universe in the beginning can be closely related to a black hole. That is, there is a dip in the balloon where the center of the mass is. And earth was below the event horizon where it experiences no time. So the outside boundary of the universe, as God is spreading out the heavens, move outside this event horizon and experience time faster than earth. Time also is distorted by gravity. So as the light travels from these outside galaxies, earth 's time is still slowed down or still stopped. But as time goes on, maybe on the sixth Earth day as space and the universe is spreading earth finally is at a point where time is matching more closely to that of the outside universe. This is because as matter spreads out the 'dip' in the black hole gets 'shallower' and thus eventually space is distorted less at the center as the universe gets less dense. Then on the 6th day when God created man, the light already on its path for billions of years came in on the sixth earth day for Adam to see all that God has created, including far reaching galaxies.Which starting assumption is correct? Or, if we do not know, why chose one over the other? Well, Humphreys has an explanation, he uses the Bible as a guide, and the Bible says that the stars are numbered. But also that earth, and us, human beings are central to God's creation.What reason does the big bang have over choosing the no center/no edge? I believe Humphrey is correct in saying that secular scientists have no scientific evidence for choosing this one. For only the two assumptions proposed can explain why every direction we point our telescope, the universe is relatively homogeneous. Instead, secular scientists have tried avoiding a center/edge due to religious implications. If we are at the center, (Life itself is improbable to form on its own, let alone forming a place that is relatively close to the center of the universe), it would seem we are maybe part of a special creation.

---

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation. Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

I will talk mostly about some misconceptions on the theory,The Creationists cosmology uses a 'white hole' (black hole running in reverse). So the universe is spreading out, not collapsing. This, appearantly, comes from the theory of relativity, so its not something just made up.Evidence that the earth is close to the center:
Observations were made on the redshifts themselves, and they appeared to be quantized, this would make it seem that our galaxy is the center of concentrated rings of galaxies outside of our universe. There is debate on this, but from what I can tell, redshifts are quantized.Here is the forum on redshifts itself from this site
EvC Forum: Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universeHere is a recent paper on redshifts(quantized)
Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report - NASA/ADSRedshift is mainly caused by the expansion of space itself. Not just by the recession of galaxies. (for both the big bang and humphreys cosmology). Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Notice that there is a beginning to time itself, probably because it is closely related with matter and space. But remember that in the Humphrey's cosmology there are multiple times of reference, but God uses earth's point of reference for time. This is a misconception about black (& white) holes. Gravity forces, and density are not always huge. And in the beginning water was at the center, being compressed until nuclear reaction took place to cause the expansion (and perhaps the light which God said He made before the sun and stars). Funny how a theory can discover things, I thought people made the discovery. In any case, the cosmic background also follows from Humphreys cosmology, since the physics are similar as that of the big bang. The only difference is the assumptions. Humphrey's model suggests that the radius of the universe is a bit bigger than we are able to observe. His model does not predict the radius of the universe. God created the universe that we observe today out of water. Humphrey does talk about the radius of the waters that God has created. But I forget how big that number is, from this we can predict the average amount of mass in the universe. However, God did spread two bodies of waters in the beginning. So in Humphreys model, there is a ring of water around where the universe is held 'captive'. Like a giant wall.As for the density, I do not see how there should be more mass in the center. For the density will be the same at the beginning, before the expansion out of the 'white' hole, and as it comes out of the 'white' hole. Hmmm... Kuiper belt - Wikipedia
There are definitely Kuiper objects around, they just aren't comets!! So Humphrey's argument still hold regarding comets.This is just a weak website you use. Click on the websites they point to for more Kuiper objects, they don't mention comets. Emphasis mine. His take??, means what to you? You really think RATE is out to lunch that bad? My take is that your sources are not so reliable as you think they are.I encourage more criticism, but not ignorance.Humphrey, in his book, suggest that the theory be called a theory not a fact. He hopes others will be interested in what he proposes to flesh out mistakes etc, like what real scientists do. Do keep in mind that most of you have read my version of it, which could be a bit off. I encourage you to read up on what Humphrey has to say himself. In the future, when you do make criticism, do not write as if we believe this is fact and the infallible word of God. I believe it will change, but as of yet, there does not seem to be a big problem with it. Especially regarding the quantized redshifts.Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

I think you miss the argument. If the universe really is as old as you claim, you will need a HUGE reservoir for all these comets. They should have been observed by now. However, we do not. So since comets do not last longer than a few thousand years, where is their source?Remember he is coming from a creationists point of view, where our solar system is fairly young. This point he raises is a reasonable one, for Creationists can explain why we still observe comets if the solar system is young.And what 'good circumstantial evidence' might that be? That we have not observed any comets yet? Or that we have observed large objects which do not represent comets, but there must be comets near by? And this is the 'mark' of better science?Maybe I'm just confused and ignorant, I am a Creationist...

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

See next replyEdited by Confidence, : No reason given.Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

I admit, that it is poor science to conclude something based on lack of evidence. But the evidence we see today does fit with a young age for our solar system. So the point is still relevant, but we cannot deduce that there are no comets, and you are totally right on that. Here is a point that I can use in my favour. Your logic is that the larger objects mean that there are more smaller objects of the same type. So the Kuiper belt with its many known large objects, which do not consists of known comets, must therefore have a multitude of smaller objects. However, based on your logic, these smaller objects will be of the same non-comet type material.Again, this is not enough to say there will never be comets observed. But to say that comets do exist there is likewise a un-scientific assumption

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

I do not know.
It does predict we are in the center. And observed quantized redshifts seem to support this. This answer does not talk about the assumption without edges. The predictions will come from Humphreys model as well, as the physics are quite similar. The big difference, is that the universe finite, and it has a center.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

The edge of the universe is unknown, but he does say that the diameter of all the matter of the universe at the beginning, originally water, was about 2 light years across. The event horizon then was at about 0.5 billion light years away from this outer edge of water.This cosmology also states that outside the edge of the universe is more space for some distance, then there is the 'wall' of water, probably ice now. This 'wall' encases this universe.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

More space. At least, the Bible hints at another heaven(the word that represents space in certain contexts). What is behind that? not sure.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

I also do not see how such an argument can stand. But please show me where I made such a statement? It seems this is not the first time people like to misread what the other party is trying to say. Let us all be careful and not try to misquote anyone. For this statement is absurd and I never did say that it 'refutes ALL other evidence'. All I said that so far it favours a young earth.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

quote:

---

In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ”shouldn’t have been’...

​

...This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior...

​

...Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ”contamination’ and ”background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

---

Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

Many claims that Humphrey is not a real scientist are not founded on good arguments.

quote:

---

NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on,"...
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

---

AND

quote:

---

In 1984, when no space craft had yet reached Uranus and Neptune, I published a theory predicting the strength of the magnetic fields of those two planets in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal.2 I made the predictions on the basis of my hypotheses that (A) the raw material of creation was water (based on II Peter 3:5, "the earth was formed out of water and by water"), and (B) at the instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction.3 The tiny magnetic fields of so many nuclei would all add up to a large magnetic field. By the ordinary laws of physics, the spins of the nuclei would lose their alignment within seconds, but the large magnetic field would preserve itself by causing an electric current to circulate in the interior of each planet. By the same laws, the currents and fields would preserve themselves with only minor losses, as God rapidly transformed the water into other materials. After that, the currents and fields would decay due to electrical resistance over thousands of years.4 Not all creationists agree with my hypothesis that the original material was water, but all agree that once a magnetic field existed, it would decay over time.
The Institute for Creation Research

---

Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

It is true that they do not give to many clues on where and how they got those results. I will continue looking for now, your references are helpful though.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.