Why is a 6,000-year-old universe so hard to believe?
One Day Seminar (9 am to 5 pm) Saturday 1st August 2015
Happened in Adelaide South Australia
AGE AND REASON poster PDF
Sponsored by Creation Ministries International
- A/Prof. John Gideon Hartnett (Australian, physicist, cosmologist)
- Dr Jim Mason (Canadian, nuclear physicist)
Worldviews of naturalism, uniformitarianism and biblical creation; age of the Universe, age of the earth, dating methods, Carbon-14, biblical cosmology, fossils, sedimentation, creationist solutions to the starlight travel time problem and much more.
The talks were recorded and are available here for online viewing.
Click on the links below for video of audio/visual Powerpoint presentations.
Abstract: I speculate on a new cosmological redshift mechanism due to ‘tired light’ in a created static-yet-unstable 6000-year-old finite-size universe. This utilises Lisle’s ASC model, but I show a one-to-one correspondence with the Hartnett-Carmeli model that was so successful when tested against type Ia supernova measurements. This gives a theoretical underpinning to the ASC model with a Hubble law redshift-distance dependence, but not from expansion, yet where, today, we see all sources in the universe only 6000 years after they were created. Article first published by Answers Research Journal 8 (2015):77–83. PDF available here.
In standard cosmology it is normal practice to assume no Creator and that the material world is all that there is. Therefore it follows that only the laws of physics, time and chance are to be considered when formulating a description of the creation and history of the universe we see. This means that within the visible horizon there has been sufficient time for the gravitational and electromagnetic influences2 of the matter elsewhere to be felt locally. Assuming an expanding universe, the only limitation comes from the notion that the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light (c)3 and therefore this has introduced to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation what is known as the horizon problem.4 Continue reading
My recent post “A biblical creationist cosmogony” describes a cosmogony involving Lisle’s ASC (Anisotropic Synchrony Convention) model in a static universe with some added features. However the question has been asked whether it allows for sufficient time in terms of process in the cosmos to account for things like the formation of supernova remnants (SNR)?
The reason for this question is that because the ASC model and associated cosmogony essentially is saying the Universe is only about 6000 years old, it follows that no structures (stars, galaxies, quasars, SNRs etc) can have an age greater than this 6000 years. But aren’t galaxies billions of years old? Is there any evidence of expanding clouds from supernovae that are much older than 6000 years? There really are two categories to study here. One is apparent age and the other actual age. Our sun for example was created on Day 4 about 6000 years ago, therefore it cannot be the 4.7-billion-year-old star as we have been told.
Since God clearly told us in Scripture that he created the sun on that particular day, we know how old it is. The assumed uniformitarian age is based on man’s belief, which excludes a supernatural creation. Therefore the billions of years are not by some direct measurement but by imposition of a belief system. The same goes for all stars and galaxies as well. Continue reading
If the universe is only 6000 years old according to Moses (Genesis chapters 5 and 11) then biblical creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem. The universe is tens of billions of light-years across. There are good scientific grounds to believe that is the case. So shouldn’t it take at least billions of years for light to reach us from the distant galaxies? How do you reconcile the size of the Universe with only the 6000 years or so available since the Creation, according to Genesis chapter 1 in the Bible? I once listed five possible areas that we might find a solution.1
I believe that within the following options or categories explanations may be found that are consistent with the text of Genesis and so maintain the interpretation of 6 × 24-hour literal earth-rotation days of creation, about 6000 years ago. They are briefly discussed here in no particular order.
1. A timing convention
One possibility is that the language of Genesis is phenomenological language (describing appearance). In this case, stars were made billions of years before Day 4,2 but in such a manner that the light from all stars (and galaxies), no matter how far away, all arrived at the earth on Day 4 and so their light could have been seen first at that moment. This is reference frame ‘time-stamping’ events from the moment they are seen on Earth.
Lisle’s timing or clock synchrony convention3,4 describes this idea. He presented two possible interpretations: One is phenomenological language and the second has to do with the physical nature of the created universe. Continue reading
8 reasons are presented that make evolution an impossible idea. The term evolution is used in the general sense applying to the universe beginning at the big bang, and including cosmic evolution of stars and galaxies, the solar system and Earth, and the origin of life and biological evolution.
The questions are taken from the cosmos, from geology of the planet Earth and from biology. The reasons that make evolution foolish as a viable scientific theory are posed as the lack of any reasonable answer to 8 questions:
Where did the Universe come from?
How did nothing explode?
How did stars and galaxies form?
How come all rocks dated with Carbon-14 give ‘absolute ages’ less than 56,000 yrs?
How do you determine the absolute age of a fossil?
Why hasn’t evolution been observed?
How does specific complex coded information in DNA arise by chance?
How did life arise from non-living chemicals by random chance?
See my article 8 REASONS WHY EVOLUTION IS FOOLISH. Note the questions and my answers also at the end of the web article. You can find a pdf tract of the same title in English or other languages under Downloads on the front page.
This is a lecture delivered at the University of Adelaide on June 6th, 2014. I presented the lecture to an audience of about 55 and spoke on the topic for about 60 minutes presenting my 8 reasons via 8 questions which, so far, have not been answered by evolutionists. Following the lecture we had about 40 minutes of Q&A. The lecture was attended by an atheist group who attempted to catch me with ‘straw men’ and misdirected questions, see: ATHEISTS TURN OUT TO STRIKE AGAINST CREATIONISM AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
On Friday June 6th, I presented a lecture at the University of Adelaide entitled “8 Reasons Why Evolution is Foolish” to an audience of about 55, filling about half of the seating in a small lecture theatre. I spoke on the topic for about 60 minutes presenting my 8 reasons via 8 questions which, so far, have not been answered by evolutionists. Following the lecture we had about 40 minutes of Q&A. The video of the lecture is here.
An organised group of atheists turned out to “strike a blow for science against creationism and the supernatural” by taking me on. That is what they claimed on their website.1 See left excerpt.
There were about 10 members of some atheist club, who peppered themselves through the audience. After the event one guy identified himself as president of some atheist club, so it is clear they came with an action plan. I had been forewarned that something like this might happen as one contact told me that there had been a lot of activity on a university-connected FB page about this event. But their arguments and the questions they put to me in the Q&A were a total failure.
Part II of two parts: This paper reviews Lisle’s cosmological model, which uses the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC). That model claims the ASC is that of the language used in the Bible, and has special relevance to the creation account. Events are time stamped by the moment they are first observed on Earth. Lisle contends that the stars really were made on the fourth day of Creation Week, and that their light reached Earth instantaneously due to the way clocks are synchronized. (First published in Journal of Creation 25(3): 56-62, 2011.)
This continues where Part I left off. Read Part I first.
Process in observed structures
How much time does it takes for structures in the cosmos to form based on assumptions of their current measured expansion rates, like in supernova remnants, for example? And how much is necessary to be assumed as created mature by God? Continue reading