Jump to content


Photo

Sorry Guys, Proof That The Earth Is Old...


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#21 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 26 April 2007 - 04:54 AM

The trouble with discussing the Big Bang as a layperson is that whilst I've read quite a lot about it, I can't pretend to understand the subject in enough depth to argue with the scientists involved (particularly on the mathematical level).

Scientists call it the “horizon” problem and have created a flimsy hypothesis called “inflation” to try to explain it. Ironically, one creation scientist I know told me that if you slightly tweak the “inflation” data, it also solves the star light problem for creationists!


...But inflation is no longer a "flimsy hypothesis". It predicted that the Universe would not be *entirely* flat or homogenous and to what tune that would be. These predictions have been borne out, as close to exactly as makes no differenece, in the last few years by ever more accurate astronomical instruments. It may smack a bit of a "cosmological constant", but it does work...

For those who doubt my claim that the inflation theory is really a just-so story to explain the evolutionist’s starlight problem, check out the many prominent astronomers and physicists who agree with me:


Whilst Halton Arp may well be described as a "prominent astronomer", he has long touted his own theory (mainly regarding quasars) which stands contra to the Big Bang and is very contraversial in cosmology. As it is his life's work I'm not surprised that he is sticking to his guns despite the fact that our instruments - so much better than in the 1960's when he came up with his theory - have pretty much explained away the anomalies he based them on.

I'm wary of making the following statement, being as it may well be construed as some king of argument to authority, but I think the list of names would be more indicative if it didn't include engineers, doctors and other non-cosmological professionals and especially "independent researchers" - after all, I might include myself in *that* list! I'd ask how, given that even many cosmologists struggle to understand the theory, do people who don't work in the field itself expect to know enough to object to it? If that is the case it leaves us with a bit of a problem. If Big Bang theory proves to be useful technologically, do we just leave the scientists to it and default to our own beliefs?

#22 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 26 April 2007 - 09:16 AM

Whilst Halton Arp may well be described as a "prominent astronomer", he has long touted his own theory (mainly regarding quasars) which stands contra to the Big Bang and is very contraversial in cosmology.  As it is his life's work I'm not surprised that he is sticking to his guns despite the fact that our instruments - so much better than in the 1960's when he came up with his theory - have pretty much explained away the anomalies he based them on.


Do you have any references for your claim that Arp's observations '...have [been] pretty much explained away...'? I've read Arp's books and I would be really interested in seeing how the establishment has come to terms with his observations.

In any case, I think it is particularly revealing of the 'state of the establishment' how Arp's observations were dealt with in the past. His telescope time was revoked, he was ostracized and eventually had to move to Germany to breathe the air of academic freedom.

:) IF (and I regard that as a BIG if) the establishment has 'explained away' his observations, it still leaves the issue of professional decorum and standards of conduct. Running someone out of town on a rail because he dares publish observations that run contrary to the currently prevailing theory is an extraordinarily poor way to coduct the scientific enterprise. And there is no sign that the establishment has corrected this mentality.

Scott

#23 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 26 April 2007 - 01:15 PM


The big bang model is also trying to fit a certain bias.


That's not a bias of the theory that I know off.


Big Bang theory is chockfull of bias. Edwin Hubble himself paraded his bias for all to see:

“But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs.”

{Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.51}


“…the density of nebular distribution increases outward symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy within the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, …to escape the horror of a unique position….”

{ Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 58-59}


…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

{ Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 50,51 & 58}


These passages are loaded with emotionally charged words and bias; declaring that ‘…the horror of a unique position’ is ‘intolerable’, ‘unwelcome’ and ‘must be avoided at all costs’. Of course, the horror he felt was due to the metaphysical/theological implications of universe being Earth-centric.

Interesting that despite his book’s title, Observational Approach to Cosmology, he was clearly willing to disregard his observations in favor of his theory.

This is parallel to the ID/Evolution controversy today - though evolutionists will not admit it. Evolutionists are horrified by ID for precisely the same reasons that Hubble was horrified at an Earth-centric universe.

That said, there is nothing wrong with such bias – in fact it is unavoidable. Scientific theories require axioms (i.e. foundational assumptions) to even get off the ground. Such axioms are by definition, unprovable. I don’t see a problem as long as a scientist is upfront about his biases and starting assumptions, as Hubble was. The problem is that most in the establishment do everything in their power to hide their starting assumptions from the public to foster the illusion of objectivity.

Incidentally, this also highlights the inadequacy of science. In many cases, science itself is completely unable to judge which set of axioms/starting assumptions has more relative validity. This is where history, philosophy, metaphysics & theology enter the picture. Science offers, at best, an incomplete picture of reality and must be complimented by other disciplines in order to construct a fully-orbed picture of reality.

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis clearly layed out the issue where he stated that:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

(W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.)


This is an area where I think that Creationists, in general, far outshine their evolutionary counterparts. Creationists are very upfront about their philosophical/metaphysical biases and how they impact their scientific models and theories. Evolutionists, as mentioned above, usually stridently deny their philosophical/metaphysical biases in an attempt to make their theories and models ‘objective’.

In reference to Ellis’ point above, Humphreys, Hartnett, Gentry and others have proposed just such Earth-centric cosmologies. The work of Humphreys and Hartnett in particular are completely consistent with relativity and other relevant science and squarely address the light-travel time issue.

What exactly do you mean by 'unbounded'?


The term ‘unbounded’ refers to the supposed lack of boundaries for the universe. In other words, there are no ‘edges’ and thus, no center. If the universe has:

-Zero curvature; the universe could be envisioned as a infinite, flat plane.

-Positive curvature: the universe could be envisioned as a infinite plane warped back onto itself as a ‘hyper-sphere’. In this picture, the 3D space of the universe would be analogous to the 2D surface of an inflated balloon. This option makes it possible to have a finite universe that is nevertheless 'unbounded'.

-Negative curvature: the universe could be envisioned as a infinite plane warped into a saddle-shape.

Posted Image

#24 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 26 April 2007 - 04:23 PM

IF (and I regard that as a BIG if) the establishment has 'explained away' his observations, it still leaves the issue of professional decorum and standards of conduct. Running someone out of town on a rail because he dares publish observations that run contrary to the currently prevailing theory is an extraordinarily poor way to coduct the scientific enterprise. And there is no sign that the establishment has corrected this mentality.

View Post


Nobody ran him out of town. Arp lost his telescope time because his theory just doesn't work as well as the Big Bang. Telescope time is precious and they don't just dish it out if there isn't a very good reason. A steady, stable, infinite universe just doesn't fit what is seen. The problems he once thought existed with quasars being intrinsic objects have, under scrutiny from the telescopes developed over the last 50 years, have turned out to be non-existent.

These passages are loaded with emotionally charged words and bias; declaring that ‘…the horror of a unique position’ is ‘intolerable’, ‘unwelcome’ and ‘must be avoided at all costs’. Of course, the horror he felt was due to the metaphysical/theological implications of universe being Earth-centric.


"Of course"? Why of course? I read it as meaning that an Earth-centric model throws up too many scientific problems, not ethical/metaphysical ones.

As for the rest...the Big Bang is based on maths and the readily accepted laws of physics. It's the simplest model that works. That's why I accept it as the most likely model for now.

But as I said, it's not my field, so I remain well aware of my limitations in understanding.

#25 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 27 April 2007 - 07:17 AM

First postulate; The distance from earth to the stars we can see is much greater then the distance that light can travel in 6000 years.

View Post


Here’s the bottom line response to the OP. I've ignored some of the strawman claims such as having to see light slowing over the last 50 years.

Summary

The long agers have the SAME problem, called the “horizon” problem. Their solution, the inflation theory, if true would be the SAME solution for the YEC view. Long agers can’t have it both ways.

In addition, there are several competing secular theories out there to explain the horizon problem that require the speed of light to have been very fast at the beginning. Again, this also would solve the YEC problem. You can’t have it both ways!

See the penultimate paragraph of this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia...._speed_of_light

Fred

#26 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:01 AM

Nobody ran him out of town.  Arp lost his telescope time because his theory just doesn't work as well as the Big Bang.  Telescope time is precious and they don't just dish it out if there isn't a very good reason.  A steady, stable, infinite universe just doesn't fit what is seen.  The problems he once thought existed with quasars being intrinsic objects have, under scrutiny from the telescopes developed over the last 50 years, have turned out to be non-existent.

As I understand the history, Arp was treated poorly for persistetly proclaiming his observations: primarily the fact that Quasars of immense redshift are physically connected, and observably so, to other stellar objects of low redshift. This calls the standard interpretation of redshift (as a distance indicator) into serious question. In turn, this casts substantial doubt on the Big Bang, as the standard intrepretation of redshifts are absolutely foundational to Big Bang cosmology.

Arp's adherence to Steady State Theory is separable from his observations. Steady State theory provides an interpretation of his observations. Arp's observations hold regardless of how one interprets them.

Again, can you provide references where the scientific community has successfully accounted for Arp's observations with the Big Bang model? Where have his observations been proven to be 'non-existant'?

"Of course"?  Why of course?  I read it as meaning that an Earth-centric model throws up too many scientific problems, not ethical/metaphysical ones.

Read Hubble's quotes again. He refers to the observations that indicate a 'favored position'. He objects to that because it conflicted with his theory, which postulates homogeneity.
He later states, 'This hypothesis [of a favored position] cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena.
Tell me where you see mention of the scientific problems. My reading of Hubble is confirmed by the Ellis quote; where Ellis explicitly states that there are no observations in conflict with an Earth-centric universe but that, '[y]ou can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.

As for the rest...the Big Bang is based on maths and the readily accepted laws of physics.  It's the simplest model that works.  That's why I accept it as the most likely model for now. 


I refer you, as others already have, to http://cosmologystatement.org. The model has scads of problems that are virutally ignored by the establishment.

#27 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 27 April 2007 - 05:35 PM

The trouble with discussing the Big Bang as a layperson is that whilst I've read quite a lot about it, I can't pretend to understand the subject in enough depth to argue with the scientists involved (particularly on the mathematical level).
...But inflation is no longer a "flimsy hypothesis".  It predicted that the Universe would not be *entirely* flat or homogenous and to what tune that would be.  These predictions have been borne out, as close to exactly as makes no differenece, in the last few years by ever more accurate astronomical instruments.  It may smack a bit of a "cosmological constant", but it does work...
Whilst Halton Arp may well be described as a "prominent astronomer", he has long touted his own theory (mainly regarding quasars) which stands contra to the Big Bang and is very contraversial in cosmology.  As it is his life's work I'm not surprised that he is sticking to his guns despite the fact that our instruments - so much better than in the 1960's when he came up with his theory - have pretty much explained away the anomalies he based them on.

I'm wary of making the following statement, being as it may well be construed as some king of argument to authority, but I think the list of names would be more indicative if it didn't include engineers, doctors and other non-cosmological professionals and especially "independent researchers" - after all, I might include myself in *that* list!  I'd ask how, given that even many cosmologists struggle to understand the theory, do people who don't work in the field itself expect to know enough to object to it?  If that is the case it leaves us with a bit of a problem.  If Big Bang theory proves to be useful technologically, do we just leave the scientists to it and default to our own beliefs?

View Post


Most of the observations that lend strength to the big bang theory blow the YEC theory straight out of the water. You cannot reconsile the big bang theory against scripture unless you are will to interpret Genesis very differently from the way Baptist Christians will interpret it.

#28 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 27 April 2007 - 05:59 PM

Most of the observations that lend strength to the big bang theory blow the YEC theory straight out of the water.  You cannot reconsile the big bang theory against scripture unless you are will to interpret Genesis very differently from the way Baptist Christians will interpret it.

View Post


I think you have only been reading the evolutionist's POV in this thread. Which observations for the Big Bang 1) support the big bang, 2) blow YEC out of the water?

Fred

#29 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 28 April 2007 - 02:31 PM

I think you have only been reading the evolutionist's POV in this thread. Which observations for the Big Bang 1) support the big bang, 2) blow YEC out of the water?

Fred

View Post


I would have thought that the evidence that the universe is expanding and therefore must have been smaller in the past would have been enough. None of this is mentioned in Genesis.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 April 2007 - 04:46 PM

I would have thought that the evidence that the universe is expanding and therefore must have been smaller in the past would have been enough.  None of this is mentioned in Genesis.

View Post


If God would have explained everything, how huge would the bible be. And could anyone read it within their life-time? Plus, who back then could have understood it if it were to have all that scientific information?

Books not understood would have been discarded. Books that big would have been to much trouble to preserve. Or rewrite. Or translate into other languages.

As far as expansion goes. The creation started with earth and moved outward.

Heaven (universe) just big enough to contain the earth. Then the sun and moon. Then the stars. That is a flow chart of an expanding universe. Start in one spot, then move outward.

#31 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2007 - 04:25 AM

I would have thought that the evidence that the universe is expanding and therefore must have been smaller in the past would have been enough.  None of this is mentioned in Genesis.

View Post


Not "directly" in Genesis, but if you consider:

GEN 1:6 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
GEN 1:7 And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
GEN 1:8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

with,

ISA 42:5 ¶ Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it,

ISA 45:12 "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host.

ISA 51:13 That you have forgotten the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens, And laid the foundations of the earth; That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor?

JER 10:12 ¶ It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.

JER 51:15 ¶ It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens.

then its pretty obvious that the Bible claims that the universe has expanded in the past.

Terry

#32 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 30 April 2007 - 03:15 AM

As I understand the history, Arp was treated poorly for persistetly proclaiming his observations: primarily the fact that Quasars of immense redshift are physically connected, and observably so, to other stellar objects of low redshift.


I'm wary of accepting history that basically amounts to Arp claiming that he was denied telescope time whilst the rest of the faculty claimed that cherry-picking bits of the sky that agreed with your hypothesis, isn't good use of the reources.

This calls the standard interpretation of redshift (as a distance indicator) into serious question. In turn, this casts substantial doubt on the Big Bang, as the standard intrepretation of redshifts are absolutely foundational to Big Bang cosmology.

Arp's adherence to Steady State Theory is separable from his observations. Steady State theory provides an interpretation of his observations. Arp's observations hold regardless of how one interprets them.


How can it be seperate when it is a consequence of his claim that red-shift isn't a sign that the Universe is expanding?

Again, can you provide references where the scientific community has successfully accounted for Arp's observations with the Big Bang model? Where have his observations been proven to be 'non-existant'?


I'll keep looking for a paper, but I'm not sure anyone's bothered. The various sky surveys since 1977 have pretty much backed the standard interpretation of red-shift.

Read Hubble's quotes again. He refers to the observations that indicate a 'favored position'. He objects to that because it conflicted with his theory, which postulates homogeneity.
He later states, 'This hypothesis [of a favored position] cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena.
Tell me where you see mention of the scientific problems. My reading of Hubble is confirmed by the Ellis quote; where Ellis explicitly states that there are no observations in conflict with an Earth-centric universe but that, '[y]ou can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.


Hubble's early work shows us he didn't want an expanding Universe. Einstein didn't want one either. In fact a lot of the scientific community wasn't too keen because it smacked too much of a "Creation moment". Lamaitre was a staunch Christian and was only too pleased by the Big Bang model for that reason. So I'm rather puzzled as to why any creationist would back a model that has anything to do with Steady State!

I refer you, as others already have, to http://cosmologystatement.org. The model has scads of problems that are virutally ignored by the establishment.

View Post


I'd have to say, "so what"? I don't think there are "scads of problems", though there are some. There are far fewer than there are for the other models. Throw Big Bang out and you have to throw General Relativity out with it.

#33 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 30 April 2007 - 05:35 AM

As far as expansion goes. The creation started with earth and moved outward.

Heaven (universe) just big enough to contain the earth. Then the sun and moon. Then the stars. That is a flow chart of an expanding universe. Start in one spot, then move outward.

View Post


But the current state of the universe doesn't reflect that. From what we observe of the cosmos there is no way things could have occured they way you say they have.

Also, 92g. The passages you have cited talk about the sky, not the void.

#34 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 30 April 2007 - 05:47 AM

I'm wary of accepting history that basically amounts to Arp claiming that he was denied telescope time whilst the rest of the faculty claimed that cherry-picking bits of the sky that agreed with your hypothesis, isn't good use of the reources.

Arp has catalouged a huge number of such anomalous observations and published them in his Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations. This isn't just a handful of 'cherry-picked' observations.

How can it be seperate when it is a consequence of his claim that red-shift isn't a sign that the Universe is expanding?

His claim is NOT that the universe isn't expanding. In fact, the Steady State theory has incorporated expansion into its model from the beginning. In the early days of Steady State theory, Hoyle et. al postulated that fresh matter was continually being created. They had to propose this since; 1) they acknowledged that the universe was expanding, and 2) if the universe was expanding, Steady State theory demanded that the density remain constant (i.e. steady)

The 'quasars ejecting fresh matter' theory (based on his observations) has simply provided Arp with a device for how the density of the universe stays constant.

(disclaimer: I do not believe in the Steady State theory).

Arp's main claim in this regard is that red-shifts are not necessarily distance-indicators. This is a completely different issue, but equally fatal to the Big Bang. As William Kaufmann once wrote:

If Arp is correct [about red-shifts not being distance indicators], if his observations are confirmed, he will have single-handedly shaken all modern astronomy to its very foundations. If he is right, one of the pillars of modern astronomy and cosmology will come crashing down in a turmoil unparalleled since Copernicus dared to suggest that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the solar system.
(Kaufmann III, W., The most feared astronomer on earth, Science Digest 89(6):76, 1981)


I'll keep looking for a paper, but I'm not sure anyone's bothered.  The various sky surveys since 1977 have pretty much backed the standard interpretation of red-shift.

Then how can you claim that:

The problems he once thought existed with quasars being intrinsic objects have, under scrutiny from the telescopes developed over the last 50 years, have turned out to be non-existent.

???

Arp's observations are very solid. That's not to say they cannot be disproven, but 'if no one's bothered', you can't really claim they have been dealt with.

(I'm assuming your point about 'quasars being intrinsic objects' refers to Arp's contention that the redshift of quasars are intrinsic. Correct me if I'm wrong)

Hubble's early work shows us he didn't want an expanding Universe.  Einstein didn't want one either.  In fact a lot of the scientific community wasn't too keen because it smacked too much of a "Creation moment".  Lamaitre was a staunch Christian and was only too pleased by the Big Bang model for that reason.  So I'm rather puzzled as to why any creationist would back a model that has anything to do with Steady State!

Again, Arp's observations are separable from his adherence to Steady State theory. In fact, creationary cosmologist John Hartnett has incorporated Arp's observations into his own cosmological model - which is anything but Steady State. Here is one of his papers:

The Heavens Declare a Different Story!
http://www.creationo...ntent/view/1657

He has published many papers since (not yet publicly available) that extend this work.

Further, Lamaitre being staunch Christian doesn't make him necessarily correct on his cosmology.

I'd have to say, "so what"?  I don't think there are "scads of problems", though there are some.  There are far fewer than there are for the other models.  Throw Big Bang out and you have to throw General Relativity out with it.

View Post

That's a load of crap greyhound. First, as you pointed out Einstein didn't want an expanding universe and yet saw no conflict between a static universe and his GR. Second, both Humphreys and Hartnett (to name two) have constructed creationary cosmologies (which are substanially different for the Big Bang) based solidly on GR. GR is not at all dependant upon The Big Bang for its validity.

#35 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 30 April 2007 - 07:26 AM

Arp has catalouged a huge number of such anomalous observations and published them in his Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations. This isn't just a handful of 'cherry-picked' observations.


Indeed they are a handful compared to the number out there. The 2002 survey pretty much destroyed Arp's findings anyway. It didn't find the associations he needed.

In the early days of Steady State theory, Hoyle et. al postulated that fresh matter was continually being created.  They had to propose this since; 1) they acknowledged that the universe was expanding, and 2) if the universe was expanding, Steady State theory demanded that the density remain constant (i.e. steady)

The 'quasars ejecting fresh matter' theory (based on his observations) has simply provided Arp with a device for how the density of the universe stays constant.

(disclaimer: I do not believe in the Steady State theory).


All of which backs my point about BB being a much more elegant answer to the problem.

Then how can you claim that:

???


I'm not sure quite what your objection is at this point.

Arp's observations are very solid. That's not to say they cannot be disproven, but 'if no one's bothered', you can't really claim they have been dealt with.


They're not solid. The 2dF survey pretty much destroyed redshift quantization.

(I'm assuming your point about 'quasars being intrinsic objects' refers to Arp's contention that the redshift of quasars are intrinsic. Correct me if I'm wrong)


I'm not sure if you're wrong or right. I'll presume you're right. In that case Tang and Zhang (2005) used the 2dF and another survey from 2000 - present day and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence for intrinsic redshift models. The fact remians that Arp could be right but the evidence is against him as it stands.

Further, Lamaitre being staunch Christian doesn't make him necessarily correct on his cosmology.


That wasn't the point. The point was that he wasn't using atheistic prejudice to come up with his theory.

That's a load of crap greyhound. First, as you pointed out Einstein didn't want an expanding universe and yet saw no conflict between a static universe and his GR. Second, both Humphreys and Hartnett (to name two) have constructed creationary cosmologies (which are substanially different for the Big Bang) based solidly on GR. GR is not at all dependant upon The Big Bang for its validity.

View Post


Einstein was so concerned about the fact that GR demanded a BB model that he introduced the cosmological constant - he later described that as the biggest mistake of his life...

#36 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 30 April 2007 - 08:58 AM

Indeed they are a handful compared to the number out there.  The 2002 survey pretty much destroyed Arp's findings anyway.  It didn't find the associations he needed.

Details please. Are there any papers applying the results of the 2002 survey to Arp's observations?

I'm not sure quite what your objection is at this point.

Your statement that '...quasars being intrinsic objects...' didn't make sense. Arp's point here is that quasars have intrinsic redshifts. Thus my question.

They're not solid.  The 2dF survey pretty much destroyed redshift quantization.
I'm not sure if you're wrong or right.  I'll presume you're right.  In that case Tang and Zhang (2005) used the 2dF and another survey from 2000 - present day and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence for intrinsic redshift models.  The fact remians that Arp could be right but the evidence is against him as it stands.

I'll see if I can track down Tang and Zhang (2005). Do you know if they apply their findings to Arp's observations? Assuming your point (no evidence for intrinsic redshift models) that still leaves at least one problem unresolved. Arp has also documented that high redshift quasars are physically linked to low redshift objects (such as galaxies). It is here that the redshift-distance relationship is called into question. This problem is independant of whether or not the redshifts are quantized.

Einstein was so concerned about the fact that GR demanded a BB model that he introduced the cosmological constant - he later described that as the biggest mistake of his life...

Einstein inserted the constant because he assumed (and preferred) a static universe and he needed the constant to acheive that. As I understand it GR, absent such a constant, implies an expanding or contracting universe. However, an expanding/contracting universe does not equal the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is much more than expansion. There is also the fact it is assumed that there are no edges and thus no center to the universe (the famous 'Cosmological Principal'). See quotes from Hubble & Ellis above.

In fact, two secular scientists, mathematicians Joel Smoller and Blake Temple, in a 2003 PNAS paper proposed a 'Whitehole cosmology' similar in many respects to that of Russell Humpreys' creationary cosmology (published in 1994). In Smoller & Temple's cosmology, as in Humphreys', the 'Cosmological Constant' (which is foundational to the Big Bang) is explicitly rejected. All this despite the fact that both Humphreys and Smoller & Temple employ GR in their models.

ICR article: http://www.icr.org/article/2997/

Smolin & Temple's paper:

PNAS page link: http://www.pnas.org/...ourcetype=HWCIT

PNAS pdf link: http://www.pnas.org/...ourcetype=HWCIT

Please provide some substantiation that GR is dependent upon the Big Bang for it's validity.

#37 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 30 April 2007 - 09:21 AM

But the current state of the universe doesn't reflect that.  From what we observe of the cosmos there is no way things could have occured they way you say they have.

Also, 92g.  The passages you have cited talk about the sky, not the void.

View Post


Terry & Ikester hit this on the head, but what you seem to be missing is that your own explanation (inflation) for your own problem (the horizon problem), equally would explain the YEC problem and fits with the scripture verses that touch on it (streching out the heavens).

Why could God not have "Streched out the heavens" such that it gives the same observations (redshifts, expanding universe) attributed to your very own inflation theory used to explain your own speed of light problem ?

I hope it is clear your claim that "YEC is thown out of the water by an expanding universe that was smaller in the past" itself has been thrown out of the water.

Fred

#38 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 30 April 2007 - 11:30 AM

A few more points:

- it was the CMB that killed the Steady State theory, not cosmomlogical expansion.

- speaking of quantized redshifts in general (as opposed to those associated with quasars), there is more than just Arp to contend with. Tifft & Cocke (1984) observed that all redshifts tend to be quantized. I don't think that his paper was controversial (I could be wrong). Here is a link to Humphreys' paper on this:

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show
http://www.creationo...tent/view/1570/

His paper discusses and cites several of Tifft's papers.

- Quantized redshifts, in and of themselves, do not call into question the redshift/distance relationship. Such redshifts would be interpreted with the Big Bang paradigm as indicating that stars/galaxies 'clump' at the indicated distances.

#39 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 30 April 2007 - 11:38 AM

Also, 92g.  The passages you have cited talk about the sky, not the void.

View Post


Wrong. Here's Genesis 1:14-15:

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

Needless to say, it makes more sense to say the stars and such are in interstellar space, not the sky.

In his book Starlight & Time, Humphreys makes a very persuasive case that the expanse is interstellar space.

#40 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 01 May 2007 - 02:48 AM

Details please. Are there any papers applying the results of the 2002 survey to Arp's observations?


I doubt it. Nobody else got the results Arp did. He's such a marginal figure that it'd be a waste of time writing a paper essentially just saying 'the survey shows no evidence of quantized redshift, it just looks like the initial interpretation of the data was right'. No-one's going to win a Nobel prize for that.

Einstein inserted the constant because he assumed (and preferred) a static universe and he needed the constant to acheive that. As I understand it GR, absent such a constant, implies an expanding or contracting universe. However, an expanding/contracting universe does not equal the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is much more than expansion. There is also the fact it is assumed that there are no edges and thus no center to the universe (the famous 'Cosmological Principal'). See quotes from Hubble & Ellis above.


You're quite right. Sloppy writing on my part. I was talking about steady state vs expanding Universe.

In fact, two secular scientists, mathematicians Joel Smoller and Blake Temple, in a 2003 PNAS paper proposed a 'Whitehole cosmology' similar in many respects to that of Russell Humpreys' creationary cosmology (published in 1994). In Smoller & Temple's cosmology, as in Humphreys', the 'Cosmological Constant' (which is foundational to the Big Bang) is explicitly rejected. All this despite the fact that both Humphreys and Smoller & Temple employ GR in their models.


Not sure I understand you. 'Cosmological Constant' foundational to BB? Are you talking about quantum field theory, cosmic acceleration or somesuch?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users