Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Rarelight

2015-01-21T07:21:55Z

Rarelight: /* About Rarelight */

== About Rarelight ==

I am a mechanical engineer doing finite element analysis for a large employee owned corporation. I graduated from Oregon State University in 1994 with a BSME. Interests include astronomy, physics, and the study of God's creation.

Long ago, I accepted Christ as my savior, He is my hope. I attend a Southern Baptist church, am married, and have 4 sons.

I focus on Conservapedia's creation pages. This is where my background is most applicable. I enjoy teaching others how God is proclaimed through His creation.

Starlight problem

2011-08-23T07:22:37Z

Rarelight:

The '''starlight problem''', or '''starlight travel-time problem''' concerns the placement of stars at distances so far from Earth that starlight could not traverse that distance, at its current velocity, in less than the age of the universe. Yet the light has reached Earth anyway. This raises a question under any creation-based theory, including the [[Big Bang theory]]: how did this starlight reach Earth so quickly? This is a major point of interest in the question of an [[Old Earth Creationism | old universe]] vs. [[young earth creationism | young universe]].

There is no conflict with the description in Genesis, which says, "let there be light, and there was light." It doesn't say, "let there be light, and there was darkness that light later reached."

Other possible explanations include the possibility that light traveled faster at higher energies in the past, and/or space has expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light.

[[image:Crab composite cx.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Crab nebula, a supernova remnant]]

== The size of the universe ==
The maximum distance that can be determined using parallax calculations is about 3300 light years.<ref>[http://bccp.lbl.gov/Academy/pdfs/Parallax.pdf Parallax], site http://bccp.lbl.gov</ref> Indirect measures, correlating the brightness of stars called ''cepheids'' with the period of their variability, estimate the [[Milky Way]] diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years, although others estimate the size of the entire universe to be as narrow as only 12,000 light years across.<ref>Fangrad, Richard, 2007.</ref>

Calculations based on the observed brightness of [[supernova]]e of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a galaxy cluster is estimated to be approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the [[Hubble Telescope]] using gravitational lensing.<ref>Amos, 2004</ref>

==Starlight Problem for the Big Bang Theory==

Although [[atheist]]s simplistically use the starlight problem to argue against a young Earth, the [[Big Bang theory]] has greater difficulty in explaining its own light travel problem, known as the [[horizon problem]].

The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the [[Cosmic Microwave Background]] (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform<ref name="Lisle">Lisle, 2003</ref> (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background]</ref>).
{{QuoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="Lisle" />}}

A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but ''after'' different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature.
However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions has its own problems.<ref name="Lisle" />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== Flaws in arguing for an old universe based on starlight ==

The observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of ''distance'', not ''time''.

=== Light created in transit ===
Some creationists have proposed that the light we see from stars more than 6,000 light years away was not emitted by those stars, but was created 'in transit' by God. Some question why we would see an image of a star exploding if the explosion did not actually occur, but the finest artistic design is often illusory.

=== Moon-Spencer theory ===
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space", taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe.
However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p. 46.</ref>

=== Decrease in the speed of light ===

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|150px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. <ref>Norman and Setterfield, 1986</ref>
This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.

One criticism of it by anticreationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the [[Fine Structure Constant]] as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed.
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in [[Sydney]], Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>Physical Review Letters 091301, 2001</ref><ref>Sarfati, 2001</ref>
However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are open to new and controversial ideas, the methods Webb used were shown to contain simple flaws, which discredited the results. <ref>M. T. Murphy, J. K. Webb, V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 239001 (2007)</ref>. A later study of 23 absorption systems using the 'Very Large Telescope' found no measurable changes.<ref>H. Chand et al., Astron. Astrophys. 417, 853 (2004)</ref>.

These problems with the theory have led most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.128</ref>. Systematic uncertainties are difficult to quantify and so Webb's results still need to be checked by independent analyses, using quasar spectra from different telescopes. Their efforts are ongoing, apparently by several different teams of scientists.

=== Humphreys' model ===
In 1994 Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a new cosmology<ref>Batten et. al., 2007, p.90, Humphreys, 1994</ref> that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger.
In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a [[gravity well]], meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of [[creation week]] were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe.
According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is ''some'' time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52). </ref>

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

=== Time dilation field ===

Dr. [[John Hartnett]], a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative [[time dilation]] model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
According to the Bible, God "stretched out"<ref>For example, {{Bible ref|Isaiah|40:22}}</ref> the heavens (space), and this movement during [[creation week]] caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[Special Theory of Relativity]], adding to the time dilation caused by [[gravity]], per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's [[General Theory of Relativity]].<ref>Hartnett, 2003, Hartnett 2007</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1 Inconstant constant?] ''Physical Review Letters 091301'' (9th August 2001)</ref>
* Amos, Jonathan, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3490657.stm Hubble sees 'most distant object'], BBC News, 15th February, 2004.
* Batten, Don, Catchpoole, David, Sarfati, Jonathan, Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.
* Fangrad, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5425 The media spin on the creationists] (Creation Ministries International), 14th November, 2007.
* Hartnett, John C., A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/ HTML] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf PDF]
* Hartnett, John, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007 ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7
* Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, ISBN 0-89051-202-7.
* Laird, Jeff, [http://swordofthemind.blogspot.com/2008/05/starlight-time-and-new-physics-review.html "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)], Gladio Mentis, 26th May, 2008.
* Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.
* Norman, T.G. and Setterfield, B., ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'', SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430 Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?] 22nd August, 2001 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], 9th August 2002 (Creation Ministries International).

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Big Bang theory

2011-08-23T07:04:19Z

Rarelight:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated by expanding into space from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the three possible geometries of the universe depend on the value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]

The '''Big Bang theory''' is a scientific theory used to account for the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe.

Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html WMAP Cosmology 101: Age of the Universe]</ref> (although this number has changed several times throughout recent history). It was first proposed by the Catholic priest [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable [[cosmic microwave background|microwave background radiation (or CMBR)]]. This radiation was allegedly discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]]; they claimed that it was found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. In other words, the Big Bang describes the expansion of space and time. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have allegedly corroborated these claims. Atheists claim that the acceleration is caused by something called '[[dark energy]]', for which there is only observational evidence but no experimental evidence. There is no viable naturalistic explanation of what dark energy is, which even a few atheists admit, yet they insist that dark energy is a naturalistic phenomenon.

Scientists refer to the theoretical exact moment the Big Bang supposedly began as t=0 ("t" standing for "time"). At this time, according to their theory all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point (a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small). A burst of energy known as the Big Bang is claimed to have issued forth, and the universe began.<ref>http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm</ref> 1.0×10-43 seconds later, the force of gravity separated from the other forces.<ref>http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/History_of_Time_and_Life/content/BigBang.htm</ref>

In 2006, researchers used the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (launched by NASA in 2001) to measure variations in the cosmic microwave background (a "faint glow which permeates the universe"). According to these measurements, the universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old, "give or take a few hundred-thousand years".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188142,00.html</ref>

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
The universe appears to be [[Fine tuned universe | fine tuned]] for life, suggesting that God set the laws of physics that allow the universe, complexity, and life to exist. Scientists have been baffled by these "coincidences" as they examine the parameters of the big bang and other physical constants.

Some creationists argue that the '''Big Bang theory''' is part of an effort to deny [[God's]] creation of all of existence. Christian physicists, such as Dr. John Hartnett,<ref>http://creation.com/starlight-and-time-a-further-breakthrough</ref> have noted that the Big Bang theory was constructed to account for serious pitfalls to the [[theory of evolution]], particularly the needed timescale of billions of years, amply contradicted by terrestrial and astronomical evidence. Thus, the big bang is trotted out by [[atheist]] evolutionists to silence [[creationist]] opponents, even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> In addition, [[young earth creationism]] holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

He further discusses the many theories that have been proposed to counter the Big Bang Theory due to its conclusion that there is a beginning or origin of creation. These additional theories have been broken down to still revert to a beginning. This in essence tries to proves a divine power or creator, which frustrates the many atheistic scientists that are trying to prove that God does not exist, including well known physicist [[Stephen Hawking]]. <ref>Stephen Hawking, ''A Brief History of Time.''</ref>

It should be noted though that if the Big Bang happened, then due to relativistic time dilation, it would not matter if the universe was created in 13.7 billion years old or 6 days as depending on ones reference frame it could have been created in both 13.7 billion years and 6 days due to time warpage. Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli astrophysicist, has put forwards models to this effect. In them he demonstrates that if the age of the universe according to evolutionists is divided by the big bang expansion factor that the resulting time is almost exactly 6 days. <ref> http://www.holycrossmonastery.org/articles/science/universe.htm </ref> Intriguingly he also calculates that due to the rate at which the expansion was said to have slowed according to the Big Bang theory each significant eras according to the time scale of evolutionists correspond to six individual twenty-four hour days corresponding to the days of creation. Despite these numbers appearing in an astonishingly coincidental fashion from known figures put forward by secular science, atheistic scientists do not comment on the coincidence.

== Scientific Criticism ==
It should be noted that the Big Bang theory has received criticism because it ignores the theory of an oscillating universe. Also, no first cause from the Big Bang has ever been successfully identified. Furthermore, critics of the Big Bang point out that not everything in the universe is actually moving apart from everything else as some galaxies have collided with other galaxies in the past, although this could be explained through understanding of classical mechanics.

The big bang theory is entirely unable to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry. If the big bang theory did happen as they say, matter and antimatter would have been created in equal quantities. When antimatter was first discovered in the 1930's, scientists immediately began looking for traces of it in the universe. No traces have been found except what we produce in particle accelerators and positrons produced by a type of radiation called positron emission. This asymmetry means that the big bang theory would have had to violate the laws of physics, since matter would have had to be produced without its antimatter partner, which violates the laws of conservation of electric charge and mass. There was some excitement in the 1970's about electroweak symmetry breaking as a method by which the matter was "preferred" over antimatter, but the infrequency of the weak force made them conclude this was impossible.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
Many have dissented from the theory, including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, an ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the Big Bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482.900</ref>

The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

== The Horizon Problem ==
The [[horizon problem]] is an argument against the Big Bang theory.
As [[Jason Lisle]] explains:
{{quoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>}}

Recognizing this difficulty, physicist [[Alan Guth]] conjured an explanation he named [[cosmic inflation]].
According to this claim, during the universe's first 10-35 of a second, a period of extremely rapid, exponential inflation occurred, expanding the universe by a factor of at least 1026.
It would be the equivalent of taking a pea and expanding it to the size of our solar system in a time less than a millionth of a blink of an eye.
If this occurred, it would mathematically allow for the uniformity of the [[CMBR]] - the vast distances were in thermodynamical contact before the rapid inflation.<ref>Castelvecchi, Davide, [http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000045 The Growth of Inflation] ''Symmetry'', 1(2), December 2004, p.12-17</ref><ref>Hinshaw, Gary, [http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24768 WMAP data put cosmic inflation to the test], 3rd May, 2006 (PhysicsWorld.com).</ref>
However, no naturalistic mechanism that would cause this sudden expansion is known, and inflation remains, at present, entirely speculative. An implication of inflation is that inflation may have acted not only upon the galaxies themselves, but also upon the light that was emitted by them, which would mean that the light reaches Earth much quicker than the speed of light alone would allow, so that the universe is much younger than it appears to be.

==External Links==
*[http://www.rareuniverse.org/general_science/bigbang.html Stages of the Big Bang]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Big Bang theory

2011-08-23T06:35:45Z

Rarelight:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated by expanding into space from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the three possible geometries of the universe depend on the value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]

The '''Big Bang theory''' is a scientific theory used to account for the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe.

Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html WMAP Cosmology 101: Age of the Universe]</ref> (although this number has changed several times throughout recent history). It was first proposed by the Catholic priest [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was supposedly observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable [[cosmic microwave background|microwave background radiation (or CMBR)]]. This radiation was allegedly discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]]; they claimed that it was found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. In other words, the Big Bang describes the expansion of space and time. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have allegedly corroborated these claims. Atheists claim that the acceleration is caused by something called '[[dark energy]]', for which there is only observational evidence but no experimental evidence. There is no viable naturalistic explanation of what dark energy is, which even a few atheists admit, yet they insist that dark energy is a naturalistic phenomenon.

Scientists refer to the theoretical exact moment the Big Bang supposedly began as t=0 ("t" standing for "time"). At this time, according to their theory all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point (a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small). A burst of energy known as the Big Bang is claimed to have issued forth, and the universe began.<ref>http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm</ref> 1.0×10-43 seconds later, the force of gravity separated from the other forces.<ref>http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/History_of_Time_and_Life/content/BigBang.htm</ref>

In 2006, researchers used the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (launched by NASA in 2001) to measure variations in the cosmic microwave background (a "faint glow which permeates the universe"). According to these measurements, the universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old, "give or take a few hundred-thousand years".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188142,00.html</ref>

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Some creationists argue that the '''Big Bang theory''' is part of an effort to deny [[God's]] creation of all of existence. Christian physicists, such as Dr. John Hartnett,<ref>http://creation.com/starlight-and-time-a-further-breakthrough</ref> have noted that the Big Bang theory was constructed to account for serious pitfalls to the [[theory of evolution]], particularly the needed timescale of billions of years, amply contradicted by terrestrial and astronomical evidence. Thus, the big bang is trotted out by [[atheist]] evolutionists to silence [[creationist]] opponents, even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> In addition, [[young earth creationism]] holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

He further discusses the many theories that have been proposed to counter the Big Bang Theory due to its conclusion that there is a beginning or origin of creation. These additional theories have been broken down to still revert to a beginning. This in essence tries to proves a divine power or creator, which frustrates the many atheistic scientists that are trying to prove that God does not exist, including well known physicist [[Stephen Hawking]]. <ref>Stephen Hawking, ''A Brief History of Time.''</ref>

It should be noted though that if the Big Bang happened, then due to relativistic time dilation, it would not matter if the universe was created in 13.7 billion years old or 6 days as depending on ones reference frame it could have been created in both 13.7 billion years and 6 days due to time warpage. Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli astrophysicist, has put forwards models to this effect. In them he demonstrates that if the age of the universe according to evolutionists is divided by the big bang expansion factor that the resulting time is almost exactly 6 days. <ref> http://www.holycrossmonastery.org/articles/science/universe.htm </ref> Intriguingly he also calculates that due to the rate at which the expansion was said to have slowed according to the Big Bang theory each significant eras according to the time scale of evolutionists correspond to six individual twenty-four hour days corresponding to the days of creation. Despite these numbers appearing in an astonishingly coincidental fashion from known figures put forward by secular science, atheistic scientists do not comment on the coincidence.

== Scientific Criticism ==
It should be noted that the Big Bang theory has received criticism because it ignores the theory of an oscillating universe. Also, no first cause from the Big Bang has ever been successfully identified. Furthermore, critics of the Big Bang point out that not everything in the universe is actually moving apart from everything else as some galaxies have collided with other galaxies in the past, although this could be explained through understanding of classical mechanics.

The big bang theory is entirely unable to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry. If the big bang theory did happen as they say, matter and antimatter would have been created in equal quantities. When antimatter was first discovered in the 1930's, scientists immediately began looking for traces of it in the universe. No traces have been found except what we produce in particle accelerators and positrons produced by a type of radiation called positron emission. This asymmetry means that the big bang theory would have had to violate the laws of physics, since matter would have had to be produced without its antimatter partner, which violates the laws of conservation of electric charge and mass. There was some excitement in the 1970's about electroweak symmetry breaking as a method by which the matter was "preferred" over antimatter, but the infrequency of the weak force made them conclude this was impossible.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
Many have dissented from the theory, including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, an ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the Big Bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482.900</ref>

The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

== The Horizon Problem ==
The [[horizon problem]] is an argument against the Big Bang theory.
As [[Jason Lisle]] explains:
{{quoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>}}

Recognizing this difficulty, physicist [[Alan Guth]] conjured an explanation he named [[cosmic inflation]].
According to this claim, during the universe's first 10-35 of a second, a period of extremely rapid, exponential inflation occurred, expanding the universe by a factor of at least 1026.
It would be the equivalent of taking a pea and expanding it to the size of our solar system in a time less than a millionth of a blink of an eye.
If this occurred, it would mathematically allow for the uniformity of the [[CMBR]] - the vast distances were in thermodynamical contact before the rapid inflation.<ref>Castelvecchi, Davide, [http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000045 The Growth of Inflation] ''Symmetry'', 1(2), December 2004, p.12-17</ref><ref>Hinshaw, Gary, [http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24768 WMAP data put cosmic inflation to the test], 3rd May, 2006 (PhysicsWorld.com).</ref>
However, no naturalistic mechanism that would cause this sudden expansion is known, and inflation remains, at present, entirely speculative. An implication of inflation is that inflation may have acted not only upon the galaxies themselves, but also upon the light that was emitted by them, which would mean that the light reaches Earth much quicker than the speed of light alone would allow, so that the universe is much younger than it appears to be.

==External Links==
*[http://www.rareuniverse.org/general_science/bigbang.html Stages of the Big Bang]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

General theory of relativity

2011-08-23T06:12:26Z

Rarelight:

''See [[Theory of Relativity]]'' for a comprehensive treatment of this topic.''

The '''General Theory of Relativity''' is an extension of [[Special theory of relativity|special relativity]], dealing with curved coordinate systems, accelerating frames of reference, curvilinear motion, and curvature of spacetime itself. It could be said that general relativity is to special relativity as vector calculus is to vector algebra. General relativity is best known for its formulation of gravity as a [[fictitious force]] arising from the curvature of spacetime. In fact, "general relativity" and "Einstein's formulation of gravity" are nearly synonymous in many people's minds.

The general theory of relativity was first published by Marcel Grossman in 1913 and [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] in 1916.
However, "even though General Relativity has passed many tests, most physicists don’t believe it is ultimately correct because it conflicts with [[quantum mechanics]]." [http://newsdesk.org/2010/08/conservapedia-calls-theory-of-relativity-a-liberal-conspiracy/]

General relativity, like [[quantum mechanics]] (the other of the two theories comprising "modern physics") both have reputations for being notoriously complicated and difficult to understand. In fact, in the early decades of the 20th century, general relativity had a sort of cult status in this regard. General relativity and quantum mechanics are both advanced college-level and postgraduate level topics. Hence this article can't possibly give a comprehensive explation of general relativity at the expert level. But we will attempt to give a rough outline, for lay people, of the general relativistic formulation of gravity.

In the [[weak field approximation]], where velocities of moving objects are low and gravitational fields are not very severe, the theory of general relativity is said to ''reduce to'' the law of universal gravitation. That is to say, under those circumstances the equations of general relativity are mathematically equivalent to the equations of Newtonian gravitation.

Modern science does not say that Newtonian (classical) gravity is wrong. It is obviously very very nearly correct. In the weak field approximation, such as one finds in our solar system, the differences between general relativity and Newtonian gravity are miniscule. It takes very sensitive tests to show the difference. The history of those tests is a fascinating subject, and will be covered near the end of this article. But in all tests conducted so far, where there are discrepancies between the predictions of general relativity and Newtonian gravity (or other competing theories for that matter), experimental results have shown general relativity to be a better description.

Outside of the solar system, one can find stronger gravitational fields, and other phenomena, such as quasars and neutron stars, that permit even more definitive tests. General relativity appears to pass those tests as well.

This is not to say, by any means, that general relativity is the ultimate, perfect theory. It has never been unified with modern formulations of quantum mechanics, and it is therefore known to be incorrect at extremely small scales. Just as Newtonian gravity is very nearly correct, and completely correct for its time, general relativity is believed to be very nearly correct, but not completely so. Contemporary speculation on the next step involves extremely esoteric notions such as string theory, gravitons, and "quantum loop gravity".

The theory is sometimes explained with a thought experiment developed by Einstein involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that under Newtonian mechanics, any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the [[equivalence principle]] and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates special relativity and the equivalence principle.

The general theory of relativity is a ''metric theory,'' sometimes also called a ''geometric theory.'' Metric theories describe physical phenomena in terms of [[differential geometry]]. This stands in contrast to Isaac Newton's [[Law of Universal Gravitation]], which described gravity in terms of a [[vector field]]. In the case of general relativity, the theory relates ''stress-energy'' — an extension of the concept of [[mass]] — and the [[curvature]] of [[spacetime]]. In the words of physicist John Wheeler, "Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve."<ref>Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. ''Gravitation.'' (1973)</ref>

==Coordinate Systems and Spacetime Diagrams==

Figure 1 shows a "spacetime diagram", with my house, my neighbor's house, and my neighbor walking from his house to mine.

:This is the same kind of diagram that is used in explanations of special relativity. The "spacetime" is sometimes called "Minkowski space". Spacetime is actually four-dimensional, but we can only show two dimensions, so we leave out y and z. The single x spatial coordinate is good enough for our purposes, so the diagram has x going from left to right, and t (time) going upward. For the purposes of this explanation, don't worry about the considerations of special relativity such as the speed of light, the Lorentz transform, or light cones. None of that is important just now.

The diagram shows the calibration, in space (that is, x) and time. These measurements are made with respect to my (stationary) frame of reference. My house is at x=0, and my neighbor's house is at x=1250 (feet). My neighbor walks at 250 feet per minute.

The diagram shows some "events"—my house, now; my house, 5 minutes from now; and my neighbor's house now and 5 minutes from now. The diagonal line depicts my neighbor walking from his house to mine, arriving 5 minutes from now. That line is called his ''world line''. The line going straight up in my house is my own world line (I'm sitting at home.)

A car is driving down the street, from left to right. Figure 2 shows the same four events and two world lines, but with different calibration—the car's own coordinate system. The car is driving 500 feet per minute, but in the opposite direction. The event of my neighbor's arrival at my house is now at x=-2500. It's way behind the car, though the car was directly in front of my house at t=0.

Because the car's frame of reference is in motion, the calibration lines in figure 2 are not perpendicular. The formerly vertical lines are now slanted. But there is something very important to notice about the two coordinate systems: They are ''flat''<ref>The words "flat" and "curved" used in this article are the same terms used by differential topology experts.</ref>. The flatness comes from the fact that the calibration lines are straight and parallel. The boxes created by the lines are parallelograms. But note that the lines don't have to be perpendicular, and the boxes don't have to be rectangles. Straight parallel lines and parallelograms are all that is required.

These two flat coordinate systems have a very important physical property: Neither I, sitting at home, nor a passenger in the car, experiences any "[[fictitious force]]s". That is, people in the car don't feel any recoil from acceleration, or centrifugal force, or Coriolis force. These frames of reference are said to be ''inertial''. This leads to an important principle of geometrical physics:

::*''Inertial frames of reference have flat coordinate systems. Flat coordinate systems lead to an absence of fictitious forces.''

Now consider figure 3. The coordinate system is once again that of the car, but the car is accelerating, starting at a standstill in front of my house at t=0. Its world line is curved. Once again, it crosses paths with my neighbor. This case is very different from the other two. The calibration lines are curved, and the boxes that they create are not parallelograms. This coordinate system is ''curved''. Another thing to notice is that people in the car will feel a fictitious force—a "recoil" force agains the back of the seat. This frame of reference is not inertial.

::*''Accelerating frames of reference have curved coordinate systems. Curved coordinate systems lead to fictitious forces.''

::::: .... !!!! We need these three diagrams, of course. I'll do them, but they will take a lot of work. If anyone else has the tools and expertise to do this, and more skill than I, feel free to make them, or to communicate with me (PatrickD).

... In progress ...

==Qualitative Introduction to General Relativity==

The relationship between the curvature of spacetime and the motions of freely falling bodies is often explained by an easily imagined analogy: bowling balls and golf balls on a trampoline.

Imagine that we place a golf ball on an ordinary backyard trampoline. If we give the golf ball a slight push, it will roll along in a straight line until friction brings it to a halt. But if we imagine that friction doesn't exist, then the golf ball will roll in a straight line at a constant speed forever — or at least until it reaches the edge of the trampoline and falls off.

Now imagine a bowling ball sitting in the middle of a trampoline. The trampoline isn't a rigid surface, so it deforms where the weight of the bowling ball pushes it down. This causes the surface to be curved downward, toward the ground.

If we place a golf ball near the edge of the trampoline, it will begin to roll toward the bowling ball, because the trampoline is sloped downward in that direction. The golf ball will start off moving very slowly, then pick up speed as it approaches the bowling ball, until finally it collides with the bowling ball and comes to rest.

But if we give the golf ball a slight push in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the bowling ball, then it will move in a curved path. If we only push it a little bit, the golf ball will curve slightly, but still collide with the bowling ball. If we push the golf ball somewhat harder, it will curve toward the bowling ball, pass by it on one side and climb back out of the depression until it reaches the edge and falls off.

But if we're ''very'' careful, and give the golf ball ''just the right'' push, it will curve completely around the bowling ball and return to our hand.

This is, in a nutshell, how spacetime and matter interact under the theory of general relativity. Massive objects — represented in our analogy by the bowling ball — curve spacetime. Less-massive objects also curve spacetime, but to a lesser extent. If the object is small enough, like our golf ball, the amount of curvature is so slight that we can't even measure it.

The way the golf ball moved in the three scenarios we imagined correspond to ''conic-section orbits,'' or ''Kepler orbits.'' When we just placed the golf ball and it rolled straight toward the bowling ball, that was a ''degenerate'' orbit: a straight line. When we gave it a push and it curved around the bowling ball and off the edge of the trampoline, that was a ''hyperbolic'' orbit. And when we gave it just the right push so that it curved around the bowling ball and back to our hand, that was an ''elliptical'' orbit.

These are the same orbits that are predicted by Isaac Newton's [[Law of Universal Gravitation|law of universal gravitation]]. But in Newton's equations, objects move in conic-section orbits because of a force that accelerates them toward the central mass. In general relativity, objects move in conic-section orbits because spacetime itself is curved, just like our imaginary trampoline was curved by the bowling ball.

Of course, our analogy is far from perfect. Our imaginary trampoline curved ''downward,'' toward the ground, pushed down by the weight of the bowling ball. That's not how spacetime behaves in general relativity. It curves, but not ''toward'' anything, not in any ''direction.'' Spacetime in general relativity is instead said to have ''intrinsic curvature,'' which is mathematically quite simple but very difficult to visualize.

And of course there are many, many other aspects of general relativity that our imaginary trampoline didn't model. But the analogy captures the essential nature of the theory: the bowling ball caused the trampoline to be curved, and the curvature of the trampoline caused the golf ball to move in a different way than if the trampoline had been flat. This is the essence of general relativity: matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move.

==Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity==
* ''See [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity]]''

==Consequences and Tests of General Relativity==

===Orbits===
General relativity provides one explanation for the precession of Mercury's perihelion, which was moving at a different speed than that predicted by a simple application of Newton's law of universal gravitation. (Previous scientists had attempted to explain it by the gravitational pull of a hypothetical planet inside Mercury's orbit, which they called [[Vulcan]]. This could also be explained by altering the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but that was disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.)

===Gravitational Lensing===
General relativity predicts that the path of light will be distorted when it passes near a massive object. In 1919, Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, used this to test general relativity by observing the bending of starlight around the sun during a total [[solar eclipse]].<ref>Paul Johnson, British historian</ref>. (A smaller degree of bending could also be consistent with Newton's theory, if one hypothesized light to consist of particles. However, that [[particle theory of light]] had gone out of favor previously.) Eddington detected a bending of light, but his range of error overlapped both Einstein's and Newton's predictions. Upon his return to England, Eddington declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. His experiment was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

Modern-day astronomers suspect they also see such "gravitational lensing" going on between galaxies, where one galactic cluster distorts the paths of the light passing around it.

==Relation to Special Relativity==

[[Special relativity]] is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

{{Relativity}}

==External Links==
*Einstein, Albert (1916), [http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"] (PDF), Annalen der Physik 49
*[http://www.rareuniverse.org/general_science/general_relativity.html A simple explanation of General Relativity]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Physics]]

Day Age

2011-07-11T19:03:56Z

Rarelight: Redirected page to Day Age Creationism

#REDIRECT [[Day Age Creationism]]

Day Age Creation

2011-07-11T19:03:16Z

Rarelight: Redirected page to Day Age Creationism

#REDIRECT [[Day Age Creationism]]

Day age creationism

2011-07-11T19:01:58Z

Rarelight: Moved page to "Day Age Creationism" and added redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Day Age Creationism]]

Day Age Creationism

2011-07-11T18:59:02Z

Rarelight: moved from "Day age creationism"

'''Day Age Creationism''' refers to an [[old earth creationist]] belief that the days of creation in [[Genesis]] do not refer to literal days but to longer periods.

Frequently the concept of "as day is a thousand years" from 2 Peter 3:8<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:8;&version=9; KJB version]</ref> is used to justify the concept.

{{Bible quote|1But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.|book=2Peter|chap=3|verses=8|version=KJV}}

Other verses are also cited, such as Psalms 90:4. The basic point behind this line of reasoning is that God works on timescales beyond that of human experience. Another point from day-age creationism is that ancient people would not have had words to describe lengths of time as long as those claimed by modern geologists. If God used these great lengths of time to form the Earth, the best way to describe this would be by relating His work week to that of the human work week. And in the process, set up the pratice of the weekly Saboth rest.

Agreement with science is an important element of day age creationism. There are many chronologies that have been drawn up, aligning the days of creation in Genesis to ages and critical events in pre-history that have been described through scientific findings.<ref>[http://www.rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:creationism]]

Day age creationism

2011-06-30T19:26:02Z

Rarelight:

{{move|Day Age Creationism}}
'''Day age creationism''' refers to an [[old earth creationist]] belief that the days of creation in [[Genesis]] do not refer to literal days but to longer periods.

Frequently the concept of "as day is a thousand years" from 2 Peter 3:8<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:8;&version=9; KJB version]</ref> is used to justify the concept.

{{Bible quote|1But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.|book=2Peter|chap=3|verses=8|version=KJV}}

Other verses are also cited, such as Psalms 90:4. The basic point behind this line of reasoning is that God works on timescales beyond that of human experience. Another point from day-age creationism is that ancient people would not have had words to describe lengths of time as long as those claimed by modern geologists. If God used these great lengths of time to form the Earth, the best way to describe this would be by relating His work week to that of the human work week. And in the process, set up the pratice of the weekly Saboth rest.

Agreement with science is an important element of day age creationism. There are many chronologies that have been drawn up, aligning the days of creation in Genesis to ages and critical events in pre-history that have been described through scientific findings.<ref>[http://www.rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:creationism]]

Old Earth Creationism

2011-06-28T19:21:31Z

Rarelight:

'''Old Earth Creationism''' is the belief that God created the universe and the world billions of years ago. Most forms of old earth creationism still believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation account, though their interpretation differs from that of young earth creationists. Modern science is an important element, which provides extensive evidence for an old Earth. Though many theologians have disputed this position, there are others, such as famous author [[C. S. Lewis]], who have supported it.

== General ==

Old Earth [[Creationism|Creationists]] hold to a view of the Biblical book of Genesis that allows for an old earth <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm</ref>.
Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race."
Dr. Geisler also wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to [[naturalism]], which they see as the philosophical [[presupposition]] of the [[theory of evolution]]." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref>

There are many forms of this position, differing mainly by where all this time fits into the creation story. One common place, is after the creation event of Gen 1:1, describing the creation of the universe. If this event preceded the first day, as most old earth creationists believe, then any age for the universe or the Earth is compatible with Genesis. This idea is a basic element in [[Gap theory]], and often included in other forms of old earth creationism.

There are a wide number of views of old earth creationism starting from the [[Gap theory]] and [[Day age creationism]] and ending with [[Theistic evolution]].

Old Earth creationists frequently, though not always, hold views which are more in keeping with those which are held by mainstream scientists. For example believers in the [[Gap theory]] maintain that there was a gap of billions of years between [[Genesis]] 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Another form of old earth creationism is the [[Day age creationism |day-age]] position which postulates that the days in the creation week represent long ages in prehistory rather than 24 hour days. Reasons for this include:<ref>http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism at RareUniverse.Org</ref>

* An alternate interpretation of "age" for the Hebrew word yom, commonly interpreted as day.
* The use of metaphor in the creation week.
* It's use as a simplification to make the story understandable to people of all generations.
* God's perspective of time does not fit that of humans. This is seen throughout scripture, as God works on timescales that are beyond human comprehension. (A day to God is as a thousand years...)
* Some of the events of the creation days seem to imply a long period of time, like the commands to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas..." (Gen 1:22 NKJV)

[[Progressive Creationism]] takes this a step farther, making more specific correlations with each of the Genesis days and geological ages in prehistory.

The most liberal of old earth theories, [[Theistic evolution]], views the Genesis creation account as allegory. This position focuses on spiritual meaning, claiming that the physical descriptions are more like parables. Obviously, this form of biblical interpretation is not accepted by most creationists.

There are some who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and also believe in some aspects of evolution. Often this may include only micro evolution, or evolution limited within various groups of animals, or evolution that is completely guided and controlled by God.

Old Earth Creationists do not all agree on the extent of the [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]], although many maintain that it was a local flood.<ref>Ross, Hugh, [http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/1990_v4n4_q4/index.shtml#let_us_reason Let Us Reason: The Waters of the Flood] ''Facts & Faith'', Volume 4, No. 4, Winter 1990.</ref>

Some proponents of Old Earth Creationism include [[Hugh Ross]], David Snoke, Greg Neyman, Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, and many others. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml</ref>

== Criticism ==

Meanwhile [[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] hold that belief in an old Earth is frequently based on extra-biblical sources, not on the Bible. For example:
{{QuoteBox|If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible ''unambiguously teaches'' long ages. Rather, the usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but ''may allow for'' an old earth.—[[Jonathan Sarfati]]<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'', Master Books, March 2004, p.55. Emphasis in original.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.—[[Pattle Pun]]<ref>Pun, P.P.T., ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'' 39:14, 1987; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4155].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.—[[Gleason Archer]]<ref>Archer, G.L., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction'', Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4154].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.—[[Charles Hodge]]<ref>Hodge, C., ''Systematic Theology'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4166] (their parenthetical insertions).</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|[C]onfessedly, it would not have been as readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not been for the evidences advanced by secular science.—J. Barton Payne<ref>J. B. Payne, ''The Theology of the Older Testament'', (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1972, p.136); quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, "Refuting Compromise", Master Books, March 2004</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|We have to admit here [concerning those who take the six days of Creation as literal days] that the exegetical basis [the arguments from the words of Scripture] of the creationists is strong. … In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. … Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe.’—James Montgomery Boice<ref>Montgomery Boice, J.L., ''Genesis: An Expositional Commentary'', Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1:57–62, 1982; quoted by [[Ken Ham|Ham, Ken]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/324/#r5 The big picture], ''Creation'' 23(2):16–18, March 2001 (their insertions in square parentheses).</ref>}}

==External links==

===Old Earth Creationism Ministries===
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers in Creation]
* [http://www.godandscience.org Godandscience.org]
* [http://www.rareuniverse.org RareUniverse.Org]

=== Criticism of Old Earth Creationism by Young Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2080 Jonathan Sarfati addresses Old Earth Claims]

===Evidence for an Old Earth===
[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html Old Earth Evidence from an OEC]

[http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism from RareUniverse.Org]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationism]]

Old earth creation

2011-06-28T19:05:46Z

Rarelight: redirect to "old earth creationism"

#REDIRECT [[Old Earth Creationism]]

Old Earth

2011-06-27T00:21:36Z

Rarelight: Major re-do of this page. This was re-written with a more balanced approach, providing more scientific information about an old Earth, the arguments against it, and the justifications for it.

Modern science has found a number of lines of evidence that the Earth is very old. While science has reached a consensus on the Earth's age, at 4.5 billion years, there is still debate within religious groups. This is centered around different interpretations of Genesis in regard to the age of the Earth. While [[Young Earth Creationism]] holds to an age of about 6000 years, [[Old Earth Creationism]] accepts the scientifically determined age.

== Dating the Earth ==

Radioisotope dating has long been an established means of dating very ancient minerals containing radioactive isotopes. The age is taken from the time that mineral solidified. Certain minerals are more useful in this process, but there are many with half lives of sufficient duration to measure the age of the Earth.
Zircon is one of these minerals. It contains zirconium in a repeating and regular crystal lattice with the other atoms in the matrix. This mineral regularly forms in the presence of other elements like lead and uranium. Uranium can substitute for zirconium in the lattice structure, but lead cannot. This provides geologists a tool for determining age. U-235 has a half life of 4.47 billion years and U-238 has a half life of 704 million years, each decaying into a different isotope of lead. By measuring the ratio of U-238 to Pb-207 and the ratio of U-235 to Pb-206, two independent measures of the sample's age can be taken. Only lead that has decomposed from uranium will be present since lead will not incorporate into this mineral during formation.
The result found from samples taken from the moon, meteorites, and ancient earth minerals all show that the Earth and the solar system formed at the same time about 4.5 billion years ago.<ref>Valley, Pech, King, Wilde (2002). "A Cool Early Earth". ''Geological Society of America''</ref> Though the oldest minerals originating on Earth are 4.4 billion years old, most earth rocks are much younger due to recycling of the Earth's crust due to plate tectonics.

== Characteristics of the Early Earth ==

Zircons found from the earliest epochs of Earth's history, are found to have formed in the presence of liquid water.<ref>Valley, Pech, King, Wilde (2002). "A Cool Early Earth". ''Geological Society of America''</ref> This suggests that as early as 4.4 billion years ago the Earth had a world wide ocean. At this time the Earth would have had a thick atmosphere and be continually clouded. This is a remarkable match to the descriptions of Earth in Gen 1:2. See
[[Old Earth Creationism]] for a the theological reasoning behind an old Earth.

== Young Earth and Old Earth Arguments ==

*Some young Earth proponents question the constancy of radiometric decay rates that is assumed in radioisotope dating methods. If these decay rates were greater in the past, this would throw off the numbers in any analysis.
*Since decay rates are determined by fundamental properties of physics, this implies variation of the fundamental constants of nature. Furthermore, this rate would have to be different by a factor of nearly one million, to account for the large discrepancy in the apparent age. The fundamental constants of physics have not been found to vary to any measurable degree in the last 13 billion years.
*In many cases the sedimentation of minerals produces annual layers in sedimentary rock strata. This occurs in a similar way in ice cores taken from polar glaciers. These formations have been found with hundreds of thousands of annual layers.
*Some believe that the flood of Noah is responsible for rapidly producing all of the layered strata found throughout the world.
*Most who believe the Earth is young also believe in a young universe. Starlight from galaxies billions of light-years away present a problem for a young universe view since this light would require billions of years to make the journey.
*Some have suggested that the speed of light was faster in the past, at a factor of nearly a million times.
*Another explanation is that the light was simply created en route. This would not require distant galaxies to exist, since the light is created independent of any material objects.
*See the [[old earth creationism]] and [[young earth creationism]] pages for more reasons for a young or old Earth.

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
*[http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism at RareUniverse.Org]

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Geology]]

User:Rarelight

2011-06-22T19:33:51Z

Rarelight: Created page with " == About Rarelight == I am a mechanical engineer doing finite element analysis for a large employee owned corporation. I graduated from Oregon State University in 1994 with a B..."

== About Rarelight ==

I am a mechanical engineer doing finite element analysis for a large employee owned corporation. I graduated from Oregon State University in 1994 with a BSME. Interests include astronomy, physics, and the study of God's creation.

Long ago, I accepted Christ as my savior, He is my hope. I attend a Southern Baptist church, am married, and have 3 sons.

I focus on Conservapedia's creation pages. This is where my background is most applicable. I enjoy teaching others how God is proclaimed through His creation.

Talk:Old Earth

2011-06-21T19:22:38Z

Rarelight:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

There is already an article on this, check out this page: [[Old Earth Creationism]]. This article should be deleted or merged. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:47, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

It's not the same thing because evolution proponents also support an old earth as well as OEC. --[[User:PeterMacKay|PeterMacKay]] 20:47, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

This is true. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:50, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

: The "4.5 billion years old" number just hangs there, suggesting a precision that does not exist and lacking an explanation of where it came from. I doubt 1 in 10 believers in an old earth could identify that number, and I don't even think that number has remain fixed for them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:27, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

I think that the educational value of this page would be enhanced if it was made more thorough. For example, I think detail regarding the processes by which earth came into existence by the old earth model would be a great help to anyone doing research here. Also, I am confused: how is it a fallacy to assume that radioactive decay rates are constant? Nobody knows of any reason why they shouldn't be, as the rate of radioactive decay of any given element is inherent in its structure. Besides, the vast range in rock ages as measured by radioactive dating shows that however decay rates may have changed, some rocks are billions of years older than others. Therefore, even if decay rates weren't constant, comparison with other dating methods would still enable adequate dating. Additionally, the 4.5 billion figure contains a margin of error of up to 500,000,000 years in either direction and has remained fixed for a long time. With current dating methods the 500,000,00 year margin is a reasonable amount of precision, while not so much as to appear suspicious from a statistical standpoint. As for an explanation of how scientists arrived at that figure, I would be happy to add one as I agree that it would be instrumental in improving the article's quality.[[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 16:16, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:Claiming that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout all of history is the same thing as saying the earth is old. The two claims tautological; one does not prove the other.

:The claim that radioactive decay was constant for all time is presumptively false because there is no reason to expect a rate of decay (or rate of movement of continents, or rate of recession of planets, or rate of burning of suns, etc.) to remain constant over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

::Things like the rate of movement of continents (which is pretty close to constant), the rate of burning of suns (which is pretty close to constant for any given star), and the rate of recession of planets are all large-scale phenomena which are much more subject to entropy and to small variations of the environmental conditions involved than the rate of radioactive decay of an element, because radioactive decay rate is inherent in the structure of the element in question. If Uranium-238 didn't have a half-life of 4.47 billion years, than it wouldn't be Uranium-238. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 22:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Your statement does not withstand scrutiny. Continental drift must have slowed down over time, and none of the other rates have always been constant either.

:::If you want to assign a new name to your element when you realize its decay rate has likely changed over time, that's fine with me. Call it "Real World Uranium-238" if you like, because in the real world rates are not constant for all time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

::::You wrote "Continental drift must have slowed down over time." Why ''must'' it have? Also, if there is actually evidence showing non-constant rates for any of the processes dicussed above, then they should be cited in the article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:35, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::[[Entropy]] is one reason why. Perpetual machines are impossible for the same reason. Lower energy is another reason. Friction is pertinent to continental drift. There are many manifestations of the basic phenomenon. It's silly for Old Earthers to pretend it doesn't exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:09, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does entropy have to do with this? I think AddisonDM is correct. If you are going to make broad assertions about continental drift and deny that the rate of decay of uranium is not constant you are going to have to provide justification for your statements. You did not do it yet. There are problems with carbon dating but the constancy of the decay rate of uranium is not one of them. [[User:Lexfundamen|Lexfundamen]] 13:34, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::The burden is on those who claim the decay rate was always constant. Prove it. Given that perpetual motion machines are impossible (do you doubt that?), the claim is implausible. The rates for everything else (as cite above) have obviously changed over time, and there is no reason to think that the decay rate is forever unchanged.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Is not the burden on the person who wrote the article stating "But it is a logical tautology to assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant, even at higher energy levels. Such assumption is identical to assuming that the Earth is old, and hence that argument is circular." This statement is not supported. You have not provided support. Why is friction different now than it was many years ago? [[User:Lexfundamen|Lexfundamen]] 14:20, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::I'm not sure about the friction argument. The plates "float" on the mantle and the mantle and liquid and its currents can drag the plates along. The plates are not necessarily slowing down, and they were not necessarily moving much faster in the past. Because of the liquid nature of the mantle, the impossibility of perpetually sustained motion does not imply a must faster rate in the past.

:::::::::Also, 1) if the continents were once one landmass and 2) if the Earth is really young (6000 years) then the plates would have had to move at ''incredible'' rates that could not be observed or repeated. The catastrophic plate tectonics models that currently exist (hydroplate and runaway subduction) are lacking, and the latter cannot even work without a miracle. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 18:42, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::Perpetual motion is not impossible, Superfluid fountains are perpetual in nature for several different gravities, including earth normal gravity. This[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI Video Clip]illustrates a perpetual motion fountain. Furthermore, Lexfundamen is correct in his statement in the fact that no change in radioactive decay of any element has ever been shown to change, only the amount of the material is in flux and decays at a predicted rate. Since the claim that it DOES change goes against what I learned in my education in nuclear engineering, I am curious where Mr. Schlafly gets this idea from. If requested I can point you to several nuclear engineering books in both academic and industrial applications that hold the decay rate to be constant.

::::::::: Addison has a point if you assume a young earth, plate tectonics would have been impossible as the forces needed to accomplish the movement would have damaged the lithosphere to such a degree where volcanic activity would occur at a rate that would extinguish life. The plates would have had to move so fast as to open up many cracks in the crust. However, if you want to argue that the rate of tectonic movement is dynamic; your theory would have to explain the effects of magnetic striping. Which is as yet to be explained by any other theory.--[[User:RichB|RichB]] 20:18, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: In response to Addison, I would never expect the rate of movement of the continents today to be as fast as they moved near the beginning of the continental drift. Today the San Francisco peninsula is moving at a slow rate, presumably much slower than in the past. The moon is receding from the earth now, but I would not expect that rate to have always been constant.

:::::::::: In response to Lexfundamen, entropy is what makes a [[perpetual motion machine]] impossible, and it is what slows down rates of virtually everything over time.

:::::::::: In response to RichB, you say a [[perpetual motion machine]] is possible and I have nothing to add to that except to disagree.

:::::::::: In response to all, there is no reason to expect the rate of decay of uranium to have been forever constant, even into the early seconds of the [[Big Bang]]. Indeed, it is preposterous to pretend it was always constant, even then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: If we may have just one more round of this: 1), if all of these rates were faster in the past, do you think that the Earth once rotated at rapid speeds? Or do you only think continetal drift and nuclear decay were much faster because that is necessary for a young Earth?

::::::::::: 2), the standard view of the Big Bang is that it began as energy, and that during the time after the Big Bang matter and the elements as we know them came into existence. Once the elements existed, there is no reason to think that their rate of decay was ''different''. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:39, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::: In reply to (1), I expect faster motion when the energy is higher and/or the time is closer to the starting point. For example, I expect the velocity of a batted ball or thrown football to be faster just after being hit or released than later in time. I would never expect the rate of movement observed for the San Francisco peninsula today to have been forever constant in the past. I would expect that movement rate to have been higher in the past. Wouldn't you?

:::::::::::: In reply to (2), I cannot imagine a point of discontinuity in the history of the world ''after'' the creation or Big Bang. I would expect that the elements formed as part of a continuum, and that their decay rate would have been continuously changing also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:49, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::: As for number 2, I really don't know enough to discuss it further! But you say for number 1, "I expect faster motion when the energy is higher and/or the time is closer to the starting point." If your starting point is a few thousand years ago, the astronomical speeds for continetal drift that you require cannot be adequately explained by any existing model. That is, perhaps the rate was faster in the past, but it could hardly have been fast enough for a young Earth that began with a single supercontinent.

:::::::::::::: North America is 3000 miles from Europe. If the Earth is 6000 years old, that would be roughly a half mile per year, and faster closer to the origin. Something doesn't have to move extraordinarily fast to cover a half-mile a year. How many feet per second is that? Compared to creation itself, it seems pretty tame.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::I think what you may be missing is that radioactive decay rates are not fundamental constants. They are derived from quantum mechanics, based upon the fundamental constants themselves. So the slightest change in a decay rate could only be caused by variations in the fundamental constants, which we know to be impossible as God fine-tuned the constants to allow the planets, etc. to exist at all. Changing strong-nuclear force a bit would stop the sun from working. [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 14:17, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Far less challenging of an obstacle than creation itself. Are you seriously proposing that a discontinuity occurred ''after'' creation? That seems implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Unindent. In response to Mr. Schlafly. My link to the perpetual motion superfuild fountain is valid and testable. As helium approaches absolute zero heat(around 2 Kelvin), it gains zero viscosity and zero entropy. Thus the demonstrated perpetual motion is verifiable. Granted it exists in perpetual motion only when viewed from inside the system as to create conditions for a superfuild to exist on earth does take energy, it does not nullify the odd characteristics of superfuild and condensate like materials. Now this does not have much to do with plate tectonics but I figured it deserved to be cleared up.

Back on the tectonic front, assuming the Mr. Schlafly is correct in a non standard rate of radioactive decay any case for a dynamic speed of tectonic movement must explain magnetic stripping. Where under sea fault lines deposit periodic amount of magma as the plates spread outward. If we are to argue that the rate of movement has varied, magnetic stripping should show longer deposits around 6,000 years ago corresponding to greater movements of the past. As this is not the case, a young earth argument might want to assume that the current tectonic state was present at the moment of creation and thus has moved constantly. Otherwise, another verifiable explanation of magnetic stripping is needed. Thoughts?--[[User:RichB|RichB]] 14:46, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

:In response to Mr Schlafly's roughly half a mile per year continental drift, yes, that's correct. But that's an ''average'' of half mile per year. It would be ''much'' faster than half a mile a year in the past, since it is so slow now, according to you. Furthermore, unless you assume that the supercontinent began to break up the moment the earth was created, you have less than 6000 years- more like 4500, if you start, as in flood geology, with the Flood. Thus the early drift rates, in order to ''average'' half a mile per year, would have had to have been ''extremely'' faster than half a mile per year in the beginning. There is simply no evidence that the plates ever moved that fast, or that they even could. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 15:51, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

::A rate of ''one thousand miles a year'' is only one-tenth of a mile per hour. Compared to creation itself, that rate of speed would seem like a nothing. In fact, I'm not sure one would even notice such slow movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:23, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

:::One thousand miles a year is 8.8 feet ''per minute.'' That is noticeable. Also, such fast movement would create a lot of heat excess heat which could cause damage to life at the beginning.

:::I don't want to extend this debate too long, but it comes down to this: is there a plausible scientific means by which the plates could actually move this fast? Remember, they float on the mantle and are moved by currents in the mantle- the analogy to a thrown football is not exactly correct. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 18:15, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Since this debate seems to be cooling down, we are left as we started. But why should the YEC viewpoint have to incorporate having a singular landmass at creation? Chinese history which is dated near or soon after the YEC start date makes mention of Chinese geography that is inconsistent with either rapid tectonic movement and non supportive of a super-continent that close in the past. Young Earth Creation has always found itself against the entire breath of scientific theory since accepting this viewpoint means assuming that many fundamental constants used by science are not, while presenting no evidence that the constants are in flux. YEC currently cannot combat the scientific argument on scientific grounds but remains untouched on Faith. Perhaps that is where we should leave it. One either accepts that the laws of chemistry, physics, and geology are constant or one does not. However I must insist that anyone who casts out the basis of modern scientific thought without understanding the concepts will have great difficulty in obtaining expertise in any field requiring a Bachelor of Science or further scientific credentials, as one would have to learn topics which their worldview considers false. Perhaps this is why the majority of the Abrahamic religions have moved away from a literal interpretation of a young earth. Genesis states that the sun was created on the 4th "day" and who are we to assume that days 1-3 were solar in length? No sun means that the earth was not orbiting, with it not orbiting, then it was not spinning. If it was not spinning, then a solar day as we experience it was not occurring. Maybe we should all embrace the concept that god's day was perhaps a great deal longer than a current day.--[[User:RichB|RichB]] 13:45, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

This article on "old Earth" is mostly an article against an old earth. It seems that a more balanced aproach would improve the quality and credibility. That seems to be the consensus among most of the contributors on this talk page. If their is no objection, i will update this page in a couple of days. thanks. --[[User:Rarelight|Rarelight]] 15:22, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Old Earth Creationism

2011-06-21T19:02:28Z

Rarelight:

'''Old Earth Creationism''' is the belief that God created the universe and the world billions of years ago. Most forms of old earth creationism still believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation account, though their interpretation differs from that of young earth creationists. Modern science is an important element, which provides extensive evidence for an old Earth. Though many theologians have disputed this position, there are others, such as famous author [[C. S. Lewis]], who have supported it.

== General ==

Old Earth [[Creationism|Creationists]] hold to a view of the Biblical book of Genesis that allows for an old earth <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm</ref>.
Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race."
Dr. Geisler also wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to [[naturalism]], which they see as the philosophical [[presupposition]] of the [[theory of evolution]]." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref>

There are many forms of this position, differing mainly by where all this time fits into the creation story. One common place, is after the creation event of Gen 1:1, describing the creation of the universe. If this event preceded the first day, as most old earth creationists believe, then any age for the universe or the Earth is compatible with Genesis. This idea is often referred to as [[Gap theory]].

There are a wide number of views of old earth creationism starting from the [[Gap theory]] and [[Day age creationism]] and ending with [[Theistic evolution]].

Old Earth creationists frequently, though not always, hold views which are more in keeping with those which are held by mainstream scientists. For example believers in the [[Gap theory]] maintain that there was a gap of billions of years between [[Genesis]] 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Another form of old earth creationism is the [[Day age creationism |day-age]] position which postulates that the days in the creation week represent long ages in prehistory rather than 24 hour days. Reasons for this include:<ref>http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism at RareUniverse.Org</ref>

* An alternate interpretation of "age" for the Hebrew word yom, commonly interpreted as day.
* The use of metaphor in the creation week.
* It's use as a simplification to make the story understandable to people of all generations.
* God's perspective of time does not fit that of humans. This is seen throughout scripture, as God works on timescales that are beyond human comprehension. (A day to God is as a thousand years...)
* Some of the events of the creation days seem to imply a long period of time, like the commands to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas..." (Gen 1:22 NKJV)

[[Progressive Creationism]] takes this a step farther, making more specific correlations with each of the Genesis days and geological ages in prehistory.

The most liberal of old earth theories, [[Theistic evolution]], views the Genesis creation account as allegory. This position focuses on spiritual meaning, claiming that the physical descriptions are more like parables. Obviously, this form of biblical interpretation is not accepted by most creationists.

There are some who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and also believe in some aspects of evolution. Often this may include only micro evolution, or evolution limited within various groups of animals, or evolution that is completely guided and controlled by God.

Old Earth Creationists do not all agree on the extent of the [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]], although many maintain that it was a local flood.<ref>Ross, Hugh, [http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/1990_v4n4_q4/index.shtml#let_us_reason Let Us Reason: The Waters of the Flood] ''Facts & Faith'', Volume 4, No. 4, Winter 1990.</ref>

Some proponents of Old Earth Creationism include [[Hugh Ross]], David Snoke, Greg Neyman, Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, and many others. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml</ref>

== Criticism ==

Meanwhile [[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] hold that belief in an old Earth is frequently based on extra-biblical sources, not on the Bible. For example:
{{QuoteBox|If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible ''unambiguously teaches'' long ages. Rather, the usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but ''may allow for'' an old earth.—[[Jonathan Sarfati]]<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'', Master Books, March 2004, p.55. Emphasis in original.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.—[[Pattle Pun]]<ref>Pun, P.P.T., ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'' 39:14, 1987; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4155].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.—[[Gleason Archer]]<ref>Archer, G.L., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction'', Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4154].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.—[[Charles Hodge]]<ref>Hodge, C., ''Systematic Theology'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4166] (their parenthetical insertions).</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|[C]onfessedly, it would not have been as readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not been for the evidences advanced by secular science.—J. Barton Payne<ref>J. B. Payne, ''The Theology of the Older Testament'', (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1972, p.136); quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, "Refuting Compromise", Master Books, March 2004</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|We have to admit here [concerning those who take the six days of Creation as literal days] that the exegetical basis [the arguments from the words of Scripture] of the creationists is strong. … In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. … Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe.’—James Montgomery Boice<ref>Montgomery Boice, J.L., ''Genesis: An Expositional Commentary'', Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1:57–62, 1982; quoted by [[Ken Ham|Ham, Ken]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/324/#r5 The big picture], ''Creation'' 23(2):16–18, March 2001 (their insertions in square parentheses).</ref>}}

==External links==

===Old Earth Creationism Ministries===
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers in Creation]
* [http://www.godandscience.org Godandscience.org]
* [http://www.rareuniverse.org RareUniverse.Org]

=== Criticism of Old Earth Creationism by Young Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2080 Jonathan Sarfati addresses Old Earth Claims]

===Evidence for an Old Earth===
[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html Old Earth Evidence from an OEC]

[http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism from RareUniverse.Org]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationism]]

Old Earth Creationism

2011-06-21T19:00:11Z

Rarelight:

'''Old Earth Creationism''' is the belief that God created the universe and the world billions of years ago. Most forms of old earth creationism still believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation account, though their interpretation differs from that of young earth creationists. Modern science is an important element, which provides extensive evidence for an old Earth. Though many theologians have disputed this position, there are others, such as famous author [[C. S. Lewis]], who have supported it.

== General ==

Old Earth [[Creationism|Creationists]] hold to a view of the Biblical book of Genesis that allows for an old earth <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm</ref>.
Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race."
Dr. Geisler also wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to [[naturalism]], which they see as the philosophical [[presupposition]] of the [[theory of evolution]]." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref>

There are many forms of this position, differing mainly by where all this time fits into the creation story. One common place, is after the creation event of Gen 1:1, describing the creation of the universe. If this event preceded the first day, as most old earth creationists believe, then any age for the universe or the Earth is compatible with Genesis. This idea is often referred to as [[Gap theory]].

There are a wide number of views of old earth creationism starting from the [[Gap theory]] and [[Day age creationism]] and ending with [[Theistic evolution]].

Old Earth creationists frequently, though not always, hold views which are more in keeping with those which are held by mainstream scientists. For example believers in the [[Gap theory]] maintain that there was a gap of billions of years between [[Genesis]] 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Another form of old earth creationism is the [[Day age creationism |day-age]] position which postulates that the days in the creation week represent long ages in prehistory rather than 24 hour days. Reasons for this include:<ref>http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism at RareUniverse.Org</ref>

* An alternate interpretation of "age" for the Hebrew word yom, commonly interpreted as day.
* The use of metaphor in the creation week.
* It's use as a simplification to make the story understandable to people of all generations.
* God's perspective of time does not fit that of humans. This is seen throughout scripture, as God works on timescales that are beyond human comprehension. (A day to God is as a thousand years...)
* Some of the events of the creation days seem to imply a long period of time, like the commands to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas..." (Gen 1:22 NKJV)

[[Progressive Creationism]] takes this a step farther, making more specific correlations with each of the Genesis days and geological ages in prehistory.

The most liberal of old earth theories, [[Theistic evolution]], views the Genesis creation account as allegory. This position focuses on spiritual meaning, claiming that the physical descriptions are more like parables. Obviously, this form of biblical interpretation is not accepted by most creationists.

There are some who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and also believe in some aspects of evolution. Often this may include only micro evolution, or evolution limited within various groups of animals, or evolution that is completely guided and controlled by God.

Old Earth Creationists do not all agree on the extent of the [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]], although many maintain that it was a local flood.<ref>Ross, Hugh, [http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/1990_v4n4_q4/index.shtml#let_us_reason Let Us Reason: The Waters of the Flood] ''Facts & Faith'', Volume 4, No. 4, Winter 1990.</ref>

Some proponents of Old Earth Creationism include [[Hugh Ross]], David Snoke, Greg Neyman, Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, and many others. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml</ref>

== Criticism ==

Meanwhile [[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] hold that belief in an old Earth is frequently based on extra-biblical sources, not on the Bible. For example:
{{QuoteBox|If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible ''unambiguously teaches'' long ages. Rather, the usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but ''may allow for'' an old earth.—[[Jonathan Sarfati]]<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'', Master Books, March 2004, p.55. Emphasis in original.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.—[[Pattle Pun]]<ref>Pun, P.P.T., ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'' 39:14, 1987; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4155].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.—[[Gleason Archer]]<ref>Archer, G.L., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction'', Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4154].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.—[[Charles Hodge]]<ref>Hodge, C., ''Systematic Theology'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4166] (their parenthetical insertions).</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|[C]onfessedly, it would not have been as readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not been for the evidences advanced by secular science.—J. Barton Payne<ref>J. B. Payne, ''The Theology of the Older Testament'', (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1972, p.136); quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, "Refuting Compromise", Master Books, March 2004</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|We have to admit here [concerning those who take the six days of Creation as literal days] that the exegetical basis [the arguments from the words of Scripture] of the creationists is strong. … In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. … Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe.’—James Montgomery Boice<ref>Montgomery Boice, J.L., ''Genesis: An Expositional Commentary'', Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1:57–62, 1982; quoted by [[Ken Ham|Ham, Ken]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/324/#r5 The big picture], ''Creation'' 23(2):16–18, March 2001 (their insertions in square parentheses).</ref>}}

==External links==

===Old Earth Creationism Ministries===
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers in Creation]
* [http://www.godandscience.org Godandscience.org]
* [http://www.rareuniverse.org RareUniverse.Org]

=== Criticism of Old Earth Creationism by Young Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2080 Jonathan Sarfati addresses Old Earth Claims]

===Evidence for an Old Earth===
[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html Old Earth Evidence from an OEC]
[http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism from RareUniverse.Org]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationism]]

Old Earth Creationism

2011-06-18T22:23:22Z

Rarelight: expanded this article.

'''Old Earth Creationism''' is the belief that God created the universe and the world billions of years ago. Most forms of old earth creationism still believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation account, though their interpretation differs from that of young earth creationists. Modern science is an important element, which provides extensive evidence for an old Earth. Though many theologians have disputed this position, there are others, such as famous author [[C. S. Lewis]], who have supported it.

== General ==

Old Earth [[Creationism|Creationists]] hold to a view of the Biblical book of Genesis that allows for an old earth <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm</ref>.
Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race."
Dr. Geisler also wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to [[naturalism]], which they see as the philosophical [[presupposition]] of the [[theory of evolution]]." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref>

There are many forms of this position, differing mainly by where all this time fits into the creation story. One common place, is after the creation event of Gen 1:1, describing the creation of the universe. If this event preceded the first day, as most old earth creationists believe, then any age for the universe or the Earth is compatible with Genesis. This idea is often referred to as [[Gap theory]].

There are a wide number of views of old earth creationism starting from the [[Gap theory]] and [[Day age creationism]] and ending with [[Theistic evolution]].

Old Earth creationists frequently, though not always, hold views which are more in keeping with those which are held by mainstream scientists. For example believers in the [[Gap theory]] maintain that there was a gap of billions of years between [[Genesis]] 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Another form of old earth creationism is the [[Day age creationism |day-age]] position which postulates that the days in the creation week represent long ages in prehistory rather than 24 hour days. Reasons for this include:<ref>http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism at RareUniverse.Org</ref>

* An alternate interpretation of "age" for the Hebrew word yom, commonly interpreted as day.
* The use of metaphor in the creation week.
* It's use as a simplification to make the story understandable to people of all generations.
* God's perspective of time does not fit that of humans. This is seen throughout scripture, as God works on timescales that are beyond human comprehension. (A day to God is as a thousand years...)
* Some of the events of the creation days seem to imply a long period of time, like the commands to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas..." (Gen 1:22 NKJV)

[[Progressive Creationism]] takes this a step farther, making more specific correlations with each of the Genesis days and geological ages in prehistory.

The most liberal of old earth theories, [[Theistic evolution]], views the Genesis creation account as allegory. This position focuses on spiritual meaning, claiming that the physical descriptions are more like parables. Obviously, this form of biblical interpretation is not accepted by most creationists.

There are some who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and also believe in some aspects of evolution. Often this may include only micro evolution, or evolution limited within various groups of animals, or evolution that is completely guided and controlled by God.

Old Earth Creationists do not all agree on the extent of the [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]], although many maintain that it was a local flood.<ref>Ross, Hugh, [http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/1990_v4n4_q4/index.shtml#let_us_reason Let Us Reason: The Waters of the Flood] ''Facts & Faith'', Volume 4, No. 4, Winter 1990.</ref>

Some proponents of Old Earth Creationism include [[Hugh Ross]], David Snoke, Greg Neyman, Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, and many others. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml</ref>

== Criticism ==

Meanwhile [[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] hold that belief in an old Earth is frequently based on extra-biblical sources, not on the Bible. For example:
{{QuoteBox|If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible ''unambiguously teaches'' long ages. Rather, the usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but ''may allow for'' an old earth.—[[Jonathan Sarfati]]<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'', Master Books, March 2004, p.55. Emphasis in original.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.—[[Pattle Pun]]<ref>Pun, P.P.T., ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'' 39:14, 1987; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4155].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.—[[Gleason Archer]]<ref>Archer, G.L., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction'', Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4154].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.—[[Charles Hodge]]<ref>Hodge, C., ''Systematic Theology'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4166] (their parenthetical insertions).</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|[C]onfessedly, it would not have been as readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not been for the evidences advanced by secular science.—J. Barton Payne<ref>J. B. Payne, ''The Theology of the Older Testament'', (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1972, p.136); quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, "Refuting Compromise", Master Books, March 2004</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|We have to admit here [concerning those who take the six days of Creation as literal days] that the exegetical basis [the arguments from the words of Scripture] of the creationists is strong. … In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. … Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe.’—James Montgomery Boice<ref>Montgomery Boice, J.L., ''Genesis: An Expositional Commentary'', Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1:57–62, 1982; quoted by [[Ken Ham|Ham, Ken]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/324/#r5 The big picture], ''Creation'' 23(2):16–18, March 2001 (their insertions in square parentheses).</ref>}}

==External links==

===Old Earth Creationism Ministries===
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers in Creation]
* [http://www.godandscience.org Godandscience.org]
* [http://www.rareuniverse.org RareUniverse.Org]

=== Criticism of Old Earth Creationism by Young Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2080 Jonathan Sarfati addresses Old Earth Claims]

===Evidence for an Old Earth===
[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html Old Earth Evidence from an OEC]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
[http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/index.html Old Earth Creationism from RareUniverse.Org]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationism]]

Special theory of relativity

2011-06-18T17:12:53Z

Rarelight:

Special Relativity (SRT) is a generalization of classical mechanics. In contrast to General Relativity, Special Relativity deals with processes observed in so called inertial frames (frames of observation without the influence of acceleration or gravity). It is based on two main observations from different experiments.

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

It is not difficult to demonstrate that it is impossible to reconcile these conditions with a Newtonian mechanics, in which the coordinates are formed in a three-dimensional space. In SRT, each object moving in its own inertial frame has its own time, which constitutes a fourth coordinate describing its state.

The three most prominent SRT effects are [[time dilation]], length contraction and the equivalence of mass and energy.

== Mathematics ==

The central equation of special relativity is<ref>http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html</ref>:
:γ=<math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}</math>, where:
* γ is the factor relating relativistic time, mass, and momentum to non-relativistic time, mass, and momentum.
* v is the speed of the object in question
* c is the [[speed of light]]

=== Classical mechanics ===

When <tt>v</tt>, the speed of the object in question, is low relative to <tt>c</tt>, γ approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-0}} = 1</math>, causing the Einstein-Lorentz relativity equations to be equivalent to Newton's equations. This is why [[classical mechanics, governed by [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion, works for particles at low mass and low speed. However, at higher velocities, γ diverges, causing relativity to be essential.

Electromagnetism, including for light and gamma radiation, where the quanta (photons) travel at light speed have no rest mass, is always relativistic.

===Universal speed limit ===
At the other extreme, when <tt>v</tt> approaches <tt>c</tt>, γ approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-1}} = \frac{1}{0} = \infty</math>. Since infinite γ means infinite mass, no object can ever reach the speed of light. (Some theorists have postulated hypothetical [[tachyon]]s, which would always travel faster than the speed of light<ref>http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html</ref>. No evidence has been found for them. If they existed, special relativity would mean that they cannot ever travel slower than the speed of light.)

== Experimental Proofs ==
# Michelson-Moreley experiment
# Blackbody radiation spectrum
# GPS clocks (general relativity)
# Lifetimes of fast traveling particles

== History ==
In the beginning of the last century the two assumption mentioned before where found experimentally in the form of the Maxwell equations, which describe electromagnetic waves. The general idea at that point was that any wave is carried by some medium, called the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]]. However, as the earth is moving through space, there should be a difference in the interferometrically determined light wavelength, when measured at noon, at evening and at night at the same geographic location. However the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] did reject the aether hypothesis. With this rejection it became an inevitable fact that equations descibing physics, which where fitting to a three dimensional space with a single timeframe for all observers exist. The mathematical framework and physical significance was developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]]. [[Albert Einstein]] gave an alternate derivation in terms of postulates.
Many other scientists contributed modifications of this theory. In particular, the Irish Physicist Fitzgerald proposed that the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment was as a result of a length contraction effect. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com Special Relativity]

== Spin as a relativistic effect ==
The relativistic extension of Quantum Mechanics, described by the Dirac Equation allows, due to the symmetry of the equation in 4-space, an additional quantum number to exist, called spin. [[electron spin]] was known from chemistry before relativity arose.

== Interpretation and paradoxes==

Some consequences of the SRT are:

# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner.

For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in an [[inertial reference frame]]).

Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

In the framework of special relativity, several thought experiments can be constructed, which lead to apparent paradoxes. The most striking one is the twin paradox. If you take twins, one on earth, and one in traveling to the next star with high speed and back, their biological age will not be the same, even though you could redefine the system of the traveling twin to be resting. This paradox is resolved because the second twin is not in an inertial frame - he has accelerated, most significantly at his turn-around point. This points out, that while neglected in special relativity, acceleration has a non-trivial role. This is considered in the [[General theory of relativity]].

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Related Links ==

[http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/energy/energy.html Mass Energy Equivalence Example]

[http://rareuniverse.org/general_science/special_relativity.html Time Dilation Example]

[[Category:Physics]]

Special theory of relativity

2011-06-18T17:11:06Z

Rarelight: added a couple of links to thought experiments that demonstrate special relativity

Special Relativity (SRT) is a generalization of classical mechanics. In contrast to General Relativity, Special Relativity deals with processes observed in so called inertial frames (frames of observation without the influence of acceleration or gravity). It is based on two main observations from different experiments.

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

It is not difficult to demonstrate that it is impossible to reconcile these conditions with a Newtonian mechanics, in which the coordinates are formed in a three-dimensional space. In SRT, each object moving in its own inertial frame has its own time, which constitutes a fourth coordinate describing its state.

The three most prominent SRT effects are [[time dilation]], length contraction and the equivalence of mass and energy.

== Mathematics ==

The central equation of special relativity is<ref>http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html</ref>:
:γ=<math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}</math>, where:
* γ is the factor relating relativistic time, mass, and momentum to non-relativistic time, mass, and momentum.
* v is the speed of the object in question
* c is the [[speed of light]]

=== Classical mechanics ===

When <tt>v</tt>, the speed of the object in question, is low relative to <tt>c</tt>, γ approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-0}} = 1</math>, causing the Einstein-Lorentz relativity equations to be equivalent to Newton's equations. This is why [[classical mechanics, governed by [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion, works for particles at low mass and low speed. However, at higher velocities, γ diverges, causing relativity to be essential.

Electromagnetism, including for light and gamma radiation, where the quanta (photons) travel at light speed have no rest mass, is always relativistic.

===Universal speed limit ===
At the other extreme, when <tt>v</tt> approaches <tt>c</tt>, γ approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-1}} = \frac{1}{0} = \infty</math>. Since infinite γ means infinite mass, no object can ever reach the speed of light. (Some theorists have postulated hypothetical [[tachyon]]s, which would always travel faster than the speed of light<ref>http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html</ref>. No evidence has been found for them. If they existed, special relativity would mean that they cannot ever travel slower than the speed of light.)

== Experimental Proofs ==
# Michelson-Moreley experiment
# Blackbody radiation spectrum
# GPS clocks (general relativity)
# Lifetimes of fast traveling particles

== History ==
In the beginning of the last century the two assumption mentioned before where found experimentally in the form of the Maxwell equations, which describe electromagnetic waves. The general idea at that point was that any wave is carried by some medium, called the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]]. However, as the earth is moving through space, there should be a difference in the interferometrically determined light wavelength, when measured at noon, at evening and at night at the same geographic location. However the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] did reject the aether hypothesis. With this rejection it became an inevitable fact that equations descibing physics, which where fitting to a three dimensional space with a single timeframe for all observers exist. The mathematical framework and physical significance was developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]]. [[Albert Einstein]] gave an alternate derivation in terms of postulates.
Many other scientists contributed modifications of this theory. In particular, the Irish Physicist Fitzgerald proposed that the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment was as a result of a length contraction effect. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com Special Relativity]

== Spin as a relativistic effect ==
The relativistic extension of Quantum Mechanics, described by the Dirac Equation allows, due to the symmetry of the equation in 4-space, an additional quantum number to exist, called spin. [[electron spin]] was known from chemistry before relativity arose.

== Interpretation and paradoxes==

Some consequences of the SRT are:

# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner.

For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in an [[inertial reference frame]]).

Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

In the framework of special relativity, several thought experiments can be constructed, which lead to apparent paradoxes. The most striking one is the twin paradox. If you take twins, one on earth, and one in traveling to the next star with high speed and back, their biological age will not be the same, even though you could redefine the system of the traveling twin to be resting. This paradox is resolved because the second twin is not in an inertial frame - he has accelerated, most significantly at his turn-around point. This points out, that while neglected in special relativity, acceleration has a non-trivial role. This is considered in the [[General theory of relativity]].

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Related Links ==

[http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/energy/energy.html Mass Energy Equivalence Example]
[http://rareuniverse.org/general_science/special_relativity.html Time Dilation Example]

[[Category:Physics]]

Progressive Creationism

2011-06-18T16:38:42Z

Rarelight:

'''Progressive creationism''' is an interpretation of the [[biblical creation account]] which, like the '''day-age interpretation''', attempts to harmonise the [[Bible]] with modern [[geology]] and ideas about the age of the earth, while at the same time rejecting atheistic [[Theory of evolution|evolution]].

== Overview ==

Progressive Creationism suggests that creation took place over a much longer period of time than the literal six day view held by [[Young Earth Creationism]]. This form of [[Old Earth Creationism]] aligns the days of creation, in order, with ages in prehistoric Earth. These days are taken to be indeterminate lengths of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years. Many of the descriptions in Genesis can be seen as simple descriptions of complex scientific processes.

Within progressive creationism, the historical accuracy and [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrancy of scripture]] are accepted, as well as most findings of [[modern science]]. This is acomplished by taking the view that the Genesis account is given from the perspective of someone on the surface of the Earth. The appearance of light on the first day is taken to be the modification of the atmosphere to allow light to pass through to the Earth's surface. The universe, sun, Earth, and moon, etc are all believed to have been created in the event of Gen 1:1. The subsequent descriptions describe the transforming of the Earth into an inhabited world.

The order of the events in Genesis and it's many predictions of future discovery match remarkably well with the geological record. For instance, science has revealed that the early Earth was a water world lacking the large continents we have today. The gradual changes in the atmosphere described on days 1, 2, and 4 mirror the planet formation models predicting a thick initial atmosphere that thins out over time. By this, day four can be viewed as the final clearing of hazes from the atmosphere so that the heavens can be clearly seen. <ref>[http://www.rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/genesispredictions.html Genesis Predictions at RareUniverse.Org]</ref>

Progressive creationists generally believe that life on Earth emerged through the special creation of various kinds of plants and animals. Natural processes can describe many of the geological changes through history, but these events are guided by God. Micro evolution is sometimes included to one extent or another, in that God allows life to adapt to suit it's environment. But the common theme is that God is control over all of these processes.

Some have asked, "why would God use natural forces to perform His creative tasks?" The Bible often describes God controlling weather, astronomical events, and the actions of animals. By acting through natural forces, His works completed long ago are discoverable to us through scientific investigation.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c009.html Christian Answers]
*[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html An overview]
*[http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/creationmodels.html Creation Models]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Progressive Creationism

2011-06-18T16:36:11Z

Rarelight:

'''Progressive creationism''' is an interpretation of the [[biblical creation account]] which, like the '''day-age interpretation''', attempts to harmonise the [[Bible]] with modern [[geology]] and ideas about the age of the earth, while at the same time rejecting atheistic [[Theory of evolution|evolution]].

== Overview ==

Progressive Creationism suggests that creation took place over a much longer period of time than the literal six day view held by [[Young Earth Creationism]]. This form of [[Old Earth Creationism]] aligns the days of creation, in order, with ages in prehistoric Earth. These days are taken to be indeterminate lengths of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years. Many of the descriptions in Genesis can be seen as simple descriptions of complex scientific processes.

Within progressive creationism, the historical accuracy and [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrancy of scripture]] are accepted, as well as most findings of [[modern science]]. This is acomplished by taking the view that the Genesis account is given from the perspective of someone on the surface of the Earth. The appearance of light on the first day is taken to be the modification of the atmosphere to allow light to pass through to the Earth's surface. The universe, sun, Earth, and moon, etc are all believed to have been created in the event of Gen 1:1. The subsequent descriptions describe the transforming of the Earth into an inhabited world.

The order of the events in Genesis and it's many predictions of future discovery match remarkably well with the geological record. For instance, science has revealed that the early Earth was a water world lacking the large continents we have today. The gradual changes in the atmosphere described on days 1, 2, and 4 mirror the planet formation models predicting a thick initial atmosphere that thins out over time. By this, day four can be viewed as the final clearing of hazes from the atmosphere so that the heavens can be clearly seen. <ref>[http://www.rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/genesispredictions.html Genesis Predictions at RareUniverse.Org]</ref>

Progressive creationists generally believe that life on Earth emerged through the special creation of various kinds of plants and animals. Natural processes can describe many of the geological changes through history, but these events are guided by God. Micro evolution is sometimes included to one extent or another, in that God allows life to adapt to suit it's environment. But the common theme is that God is control over all of these processes.

Some have asked, "why would God use natural forces to perform His creative tasks?" The Bible often describes God controlling weather, astronomical events, and the actions of animals. By using natural forces to do His work, His work completed long ago are discoverable to us through scientific investigation.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c009.html Christian Answers]
*[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html An overview]
*[http://rareuniverse.org/old_earth_creationism/creationmodels.html Creation Models]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Progressive Creationism

2011-06-18T14:49:22Z

Rarelight:

'''Progressive creationism''' is an interpretation of the [[biblical creation account]] which, like the '''day-age interpretation''', attempts to harmonise the [[Bible]] with modern [[geology]] and ideas about the age of the earth, while at the same time rejecting atheistic [[Theory of evolution|evolution]].

== Overview ==

Progressive Creationism suggests that creation took place over a much longer period of time than the literal [[Garden of Eden]] six day account related in [[Genesis]]. This form of [[Old Earth Creationism]] aligns the days of creation, in order, with ages of the prehistoric Earth. These days are taken to be indeterminate lengths of time, perhaps hundreds of millions of years. Many of the descriptions in Genesis can be seen as simple descriptions of complex scientific processes.

Within progressive creationism, the historical accuracy and inerrancy of scripture are accepted, as well as most findings of modern science. This is acomplished by taking the view that the Genesis account is given from the perspective of someone on the surface of the Earth. The appearance of light on the first day is taken to be the modification of the atmosphere to allow light to pass through to the Earth's surface. The uniniverse, sun, Earth, and moon, etc are all believed to have been created in the event of Gen 1:1, and subsequent descriptions describe the transforming of the Earth into an inhabited world.

The order of the events in Genesis and it's many predictions of future discovery match remarkably well with the geological record.<ref>[http://www.rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/genesispredictions.html] Genesis Predictions at RareUniverse.Org</ref> For instance, science has revealed that the early Earth was a water world lacking the large continents we have today. The gradual changes in the atmosphere described on days 1, 2, and 4 mirror the planet formation models predicting a thick initial atmosphere that thins out over time. By this, day four can be viewed as the final clearing of hazes from the atmosphere so that the heavens can be clearly seen.

Progressive creationists generally believe that life on Earth emerged through the special creation of various kinds of plants and animals. Natural processes can describe many of the geological changes through history, but these events are guided by God. Micro evolution is sometimes included to one extent or another, in that God allows life to adapt to suit it's environment. But the common theme is that God is control over all of these processes.

Some have asked, "why God would use natural forces to perform His creative tasks?" The Bible often describes God controlling weather, astronomical events, and the actions of animals. By using natural forces to do His work, His actions of long ago are discoverable to us through scientific investigation.

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c009.html Christian Answers]
*[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html An overview]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Progressive Creationism

2011-06-17T19:23:31Z

Rarelight:

Fine tuning

2011-06-17T18:40:04Z

Rarelight: redirect to fine tuned universe

#REDIRECT [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Fine_tuned_universe]]
--[[User:Rarelight|Rarelight]] 14:40, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Fine tuned universe

2011-06-17T06:14:23Z

Rarelight:

== Overview ==
Many of the fundamental constants of physics and cosmological parameters appear to be fine tuned for the existence of complexity and life. This includes quantities such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the relative strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the masses of the proton, neutron, and electron, and many others which are acutely critical to the stability of the universe and the various structures within it.

== Examples ==
The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the big bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all.<ref>Paul Davies, ''The Accidental Universe'', (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.65</ref><ref>[http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html Fine Tuning at RareUniverse.Org]</ref>

The gravitational constant, the universe's density, and the cosmological constant are all balanced to a remarkable precision. Had any of these parameters been different by a tiny fraction of a percent, space-time as described by general relativity would be unstable resulting in either the universe's rapid collapse shortly after it was created, or the rapid dispersion of the gasses before galaxies could form. General relativity and big bang theory show that the universe is literally on a knife's edge. If it were not for this fantastic balance, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and no life.<ref>Paul Davies, ''The Goldilocks Enigma'', (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p.149</ref>

Many other examples can be found in scientific literature. The universe is truly a massive demonstration of design by the Creator. This represents a very compelling a case from secular science, for God's existence.

----

== References ==
<references/>

Fine tuned universe

2011-06-17T06:10:44Z

Rarelight:

== Overview ==
Many of the fundamental constants of physics and cosmological parameters appear to be fine tuned for the existence of complexity and life. This includes quantities such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the relative strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the masses of the proton, neutron, and electron, and many others which are acutely critical to the stability of the universe and the various structures within it.

== Examples ==
The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the big bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all.<ref>Paul Davies, ''The Accidental Universe'', (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.65</ref><ref>[http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html]</ref>

The gravitational constant, the universe's density, and the cosmological constant are all balanced to a remarkable precision. Had any of these parameters been different by a tiny fraction of a percent, space-time as described by general relativity would be unstable resulting in either the universe's rapid collapse shortly after it was created, or the rapid dispersion of the gasses before galaxies could form. General relativity and big bang theory show that the universe is literally on a knife's edge. If it were not for this fantastic balance, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and no life.<ref>Paul Davies, ''The Goldilocks Enigma'', (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p.149</ref>

Many other examples can be found in scientific literature. The universe is truly a massive demonstration of design by the Creator. This represents a very compelling a case from secular science, for God's existence.

----

== References ==
<references/>

Fine tuned universe

2011-06-17T06:09:07Z

Rarelight:

== Premise ==
Many of the fundamental constants of physics and cosmological parameters appear to be fine tuned for the existence of complexity and life. This includes quantities such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the relative strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the masses of the proton, neutron, and electron, and many others which are acutely critical to the stability of the universe and the various structures within it.

== Examples ==
The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the big bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all.<ref>Paul Davies, ''The Accidental Universe'', (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.65</ref><ref>[http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html]</ref>

The gravitational constant, the universe's density, and the cosmological constant are all balanced to a remarkable precision. Had any of these parameters been different by a tiny fraction of a percent, space-time as described by general relativity would be unstable resulting in either the universe's rapid collapse shortly after it was created, or the rapid dispersion of the gasses before galaxies could form. General relativity and big bang theory show that the universe is literally on a knife's edge. If it were not for this fantastic balance, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and no life.<ref>Paul Davies, ''The Goldilocks Enigma'', (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p.149</ref>

Many other examples can be found in scientific literature. The universe is truly a massive demonstration of design by the Creator. This represents a very compelling a case from secular science, for God's existence.

----

== References ==

Fine tuned universe

2011-06-17T06:01:05Z

Rarelight:

== Premise ==
Many of the fundamental constants of physics and cosmological parameters appear to be fine tuned for the existence of complexity and life. This includes quantities such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the relative strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the masses of the proton, neutron, and electron, and many others which are acutely critical to the stability of the universe and the various structures within it.

== Examples ==
The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the big bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all.<references/><references/>

The gravitational constant, the universe's density, and the cosmological constant are all balanced to a remarkable precision. Had any of these parameters been different by a tiny fraction of a percent, space-time as described by general relativity would be unstable resulting in either the universe's rapid collapse shortly after it was created, or the rapid dispersion of the gasses before galaxies could form. General relativity and big bang theory show that the universe is literally on a knife's edge. If it were not for this fantastic balance, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and no life.<references/>

Many other examples can be found in scientific literature. The universe is truly a massive demonstration of design by the Creator. This represents a very compelling a case from secular science, for God's existence.

----

== References ==
<ref>1</ref> Paul Davies, ''The Accidental Universe'', (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.65
<ref>2</ref> http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html
<ref>3</ref> Paul Davies, ''The Goldilocks Enigma'', (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p.149
--[[User:Rarelight|Rarelight]] 01:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:Rarelight|Rarelight]] 01:59, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Fine tuned universe

2011-06-17T05:59:48Z

Rarelight:

== Premise ==
Many of the fundamental constants of physics and cosmological parameters appear to be fine tuned for the existence of complexity and life. This includes quantities such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the relative strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the masses of the proton, neutron, and electron, and many others which are acutely critical to the stability of the universe and the various structures within it.

== Examples ==
The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the big bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all.<reference/><reference/>

The gravitational constant, the universe's density, and the cosmological constant are all balanced to a remarkable precision. Had any of these parameters been different by a tiny fraction of a percent, space-time as described by general relativity would be unstable resulting in either the universe's rapid collapse shortly after it was created, or the rapid dispersion of the gasses before galaxies could form. General relativity and big bang theory show that the universe is literally on a knife's edge. If it were not for this fantastic balance, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and no life.<reference/>

Many other examples can be found in scientific literature. The universe is truly a massive demonstration of design by the Creator. This represents a very compelling a case from secular science, for God's existence.

----

== References ==
<ref>1</ref> Paul Davies, ''The Accidental Universe'', (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.65
<ref>2</ref> http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html
<ref>3</ref> Paul Davies, ''The Goldilocks Enigma'', (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p.149
--[[User:Rarelight|Rarelight]] 01:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:Rarelight|Rarelight]] 01:59, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Fine tuned universe

2011-06-17T05:55:12Z

Rarelight:

== Premise ==
Many of the fundamental constants of physics and cosmological parameters appear to be fine tuned for the existence of complexity and life. This includes quantities such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the relative strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the masses of the proton, neutron, and electron, and many others which are acutely critical to the stability of the universe and the various structures within it.

== Examples ==
The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the big bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all.<ref>1</ref><ref>2</ref>

The gravitational constant, the universe's density, and the cosmological constant are all balanced to a remarkable precision. Had any of these parameters been different by a tiny fraction of a percent, space-time as described by general relativity would be unstable resulting in either the universe's rapid collapse shortly after it was created, or the rapid dispersion of the gasses before galaxies could form. General relativity and big bang theory show that the universe is literally on a knife's edge. If it were not for this fantastic balance, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and no life.<ref>3</ref>

Many other examples can be found in scientific literature. The universe is truly a massive demonstration of design by the Creator. This represents a very compelling a case from secular science, for God's existence.

----

== References ==
<references/> Paul Davies, ''The Accidental Universe'', (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.65</references/>
<references/> http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html</references/>
<references/> Paul Davies, ''The Goldilocks Enigma'', (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p.149</references/>
--[[User:Rarelight|Rarelight]] 01:55, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Fine tuned universe

2011-06-17T05:54:03Z

Rarelight: Fine-tuning is an observation from mainstream science that the universe appears to be designed for life.

== Premise ==
Many of the fundamental constants of physics and cosmological parameters appear to be fine tuned for the existence of complexity and life. This includes quantities such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the relative strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the masses of the proton, neutron, and electron, and many others which are acutely critical to the stability of the universe and the various structures within it.

== Examples ==
The mass of the proton relative to the neutron is critical to regulating the primordial abundances of the chemical elements in the initial creation of matter. Shortly after the big bang, the ratio of neutrons to protons produced was related to the mass difference between these particles. Had this ratio been only 1% smaller an equal amount of neutrons and protons would have been produced. (Instead of 1 to 8 in our universe.) An equal or greater number of neutrons would have resulted in a universe with all helium and no hydrogen. (Our universe is about 74% hydrogen.) No hydrogen means no stable long lived stars like the sun and no life which requires hydrogen. Now if this ratio was only 0.2% larger protons would decay into neutrons and there would be no atoms at all.<ref>1</ref><ref>2</ref>

The gravitational constant, the universe's density, and the cosmological constant are all balanced to a remarkable precision. Had any of these parameters been different by a tiny fraction of a percent, space-time as described by general relativity would be unstable resulting in either the universe's rapid collapse shortly after it was created, or the rapid dispersion of the gasses before galaxies could form. General relativity and big bang theory show that the universe is literally on a knife's edge. If it were not for this fantastic balance, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and no life.<ref>3</ref>

Many other examples can be found in scientific literature. The universe is truly a massive demonstration of design by the Creator. This represents a very compelling a case from secular science, for God's existence.

----

== References ==
<references/1> Paul Davies, ''The Accidental Universe'', (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.65</references/1>
<references/2> http://rareuniverse.org/evidence_for_creation/finetuned.html</references/2>
<references/3> Paul Davies, ''The Goldilocks Enigma'', (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p.149</references/3>