The Big Move
November 8, 2007I recently wrote a paper proposing a solution to an outstanding problem for creationists.
After you read it, I’d appreciate any comments or thoughts.
I recently wrote a paper proposing a solution to an outstanding problem for creationists.
After you read it, I’d appreciate any comments or thoughts.
Einstein is quoted as saying:
Good creationist theories explain lots of the things we observe with some simple assumptions. For example, if there was a worldwide flood, then that would explain so many fossils, glaciers, geological formations, etc.
Having the earth zip in from billions of light years away for no apparent reason and with no physical evidence is just a mechanism to force a literal rendering of Genesis 1 to fit the evidence.
Genesis 1 correlates well with the cosmological evidence observed at that time. The big bang theory correlates well with the cosmological evidence observed in modern time. The Big Move improves neither.
Also, incidentally, the theory doesn’t work because the universe itself is expanding, giving no starting place for the earth to make its billion light-year dash. I’m sure this wouldn’t prevent a re-working of the theory to handle this issue. One can always evade falsification with complexity, but that’s not in the scientific spirit.
I find Jeremy’s comment interesting: “mechanism to force a literal rendering of Genesis 1 to fit the evidence.” He points out that this theory feels a bit contrived, but he also (maybe inadvertently) points out that a literal reading of Genesis 1 and current scientific evidence are not mutually exclusive. And while there is no current evidence that the Earth moved here from billions of light-years away, there is no evidence that it did not.
Let me present another view. The previous theory points out that the speed that an object travels affects how the object experiences time. Gravity has a similar effect. Even different places on Earth experience time differently. The effect is small, but it has been shown that an atomic clock at sea-level (more gravity) experiences time more slowly than an atomic clock on top of a mountain (less gravity).
The universe is expanding, as Jeremy pointed out. The color shift in starlight shows that all stars (except maybe the one in our own galaxy) are moving away from the Earth. This means that the Earth is near the center of the universe and is affected by more gravity than distant stars. This effect would have been even more extreme when the universe was smaller.
So to speak of the “age of the universe” is confusing, since not all places in the universe have experienced the same amount of time. This means that the whole universe is not the same age. The Earth’s age does indeed fit with the genealogical records found in the Bible. The Earth is only a few thousand years old. Distant stars are much older. That is to say that from the Earth’s perspective, the universe is a few thousand years old, but from a distant star’s perspective, the universe (and the Earth) are millions or billions of years old.
For anyone who disagrees with Ben’s “move theory” and my “gravity theory”, let me just point out that the “big bang theory” has a very similar problem. There is an issue known as the “horizon problem” dealing with heat transfer that would have had to take place across great distances. So great that even with the age of billions of years given by supporters of the big bang theory the heat simply could not have gotten to where it is now. I do not have time to explain the horizon problem here in detail (especially since I would need to research it more to fully understand it), but it is a problem for supporters of the big bang. If you want to use distance star light to disprove the creation account of Genesis, you must resolve the horizon problem or else you disprove the big bang theory at the same time.
Jeremy I find your criteria for good creationists theories to be limiting. I would propose that good creationist theories are accurate. I’m not an astrophysicist and am not aware of any observable artifacts that such a move would create. In fact, it seems to me that it wouldn’t really create that many.
For the purposes of this conversation I would like to clarify the cosmos as the stars and galaxies and the universe as space.
I am as yet unaware of any evidence that suggests a limit to our universe. This includes our current observation that the cosmos is expanding. Perhaps you could elaborate.
“The omphalos hypothesis has satisfied neither current creationists or evolutionists, since it is unfalsifiable and offers dire theological consequences regarding the nature of God.”
Do you really think dire theological consequences must result?
“Gravity Theory”
Consider the formula for graviational time dilation:
time within the field = time outside the field * sqrt(1 – (2G(r/R)^3M) / rc^2)
where G = gravitational constant
r = distance to center of mass
R = Radius of mass
M = mass
c = speed of light
When the earth is in the center of the universe, r=0, in which case the other variables no longer matter:
time within the field = time outside the field * sqrt(1 – (2G(0/R)^3M) / rc^2)
time within the field = time outside the field * sqrt(1 – 0 / rc^2)
time within the field = time outside the field * sqrt(1)
time within the field = time outside the field
There is no gravitational time dilation in your model.
Horizon problem
The Big Bang Theory, on the other hand, needs to be tweaked to handle questions about the mechanics of the initial expansion. The horizon problem is one such question. The leading theory to answer it was cosmic inflation, proposed in 1981. WMAP satellite data from 2003 confirms this theory.
Space itself is expanding
Ben, if I understand you, you’re suggesting that the objects in space are moving away from each other, but space itself is static. There are two observations that require an expanding universe to explain them:
(1) farther galaxies are moving away faster
(2) cosmic background radiation exists
Jeremy:
There are a number of models for the movement of the cosmos and only a few place the earth at center mass with a single acceleration.
I believe that space preexisted the cosmos because I believe it was created on Day 2. It may still be expanding.
Shannon:
I suppose that I would not use the term must. It doesn’t fit how I have seen him work though.
The creation story is a practical one. The stars are intended to help provide light for earth. Assuming God created the earth a few thousand years ago, it only makes sense to create lights that can be used immediately. From that perspective, the omphalos hypothesis seems like a pretty neat solution.
I see it in the same vein as the creation of an adult Adam. There’s no reason why a system has to start from zero.
I assume the theological consequences have to do with whether or not God is “honest” in setting something up that way. Wouldn’t men question God in this way no matter what he did? (Mt 11:18-19)
And with that I’m hitting on your first objection, that it is unfalsifiable. It is science that cares most about unfalifiability…but I don’t think this can be discussed purely from a scientific perspective.
Just for the record, I’m not a scientist and never heard the term “omphalos” before I read your paper. And if I managed to get that link right, I’ll be really happy.