The Physics of Creation

[bob b]

Summary of the major findings which support YEC and a 6 day Creation.

1) Expansion of the universe - Big Bangers assume an initial ultra rapid expansion of the universe, which incidentally if continued at their assumed rate of expansion for only 0.000000000000000000000001 seconds more would have yielded the current size of the universe. I then assume the expansion ceased. By an amazing coincidence this is essentially what the Bible claimed in many different books when it said: "In the beginning God stretched out the heavens".

2) It appears that the expansion would have had an effect on the decay rates of radiogenic material formed during the creation of the universe. However, many of the equations for energy release, etc. in physics have the light speed variable within them, so it appears that heat release, etc. would not be negatively affected. So it is quite possible that the rocks of which the Earth has been formed would not be as old as people typically calculate, since they do not take into account the decay rate speedup during the expansion.

3) It now appears from research in the new field of evo-devo (as well as the atavisms pointed out by Gould) that genomes of animals (and other lifeforms) contain "latent capabilities" which were probably designed into them by God when He created the first lifeforms in multiple types. These latent capabilities can be "triggered" by environmental cues to permit rapid changes in the morphologies of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. Such latent capabilities would have to be designed in advance, since natural selection works only with what is presented to it by variation: it does not "look ahead". Thus only a few different kinds of animals had to be on the Ark in order to repopulate the world within the few thousand years since the Flood, because the evo-devo paradigm shows that variations (as well as adaptations) can happen extremely rapidily when conditions require it.

--------

Comments?

 

[Ecumenicist]

If you're trying to make a case for a 6000 year old universe, I'm not with
you. But I do like your biblical reference. If we go with the Psalmist assertion
that a day to God is 1000 years to us, then the Universe is about 13,700
years old. Of course, science claims the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but
we would probably have to put a "God day" on a logarithmic scale of some
kind to line science up with the Biblical account.

I like the 1st Creation account in Genesis, which basically echos the
evolutionist sequence of events.

Any comments about dark matter causing the universe to accelerate
its expansion? Any salient biblical passages to consider in this regard?

I am interested in the "latent capabilities" you mention. Possibly "leftover
capabilities" from when the environment demanded them? Examples or
references?

Is the appendix an example of a "latent capability?"

 

[bob b]

If you're trying to make a case for a 6000 year old universe, I'm not with
you. But I do like your biblical reference. If we go with the Psalmist assertion
that a day to God is 1000 years to us, then the Universe is about 13,700
years old. Of course, science claims the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but
we would probably have to put a "God day" on a logarithmic scale of some
kind to line science up with the Biblical account.

God's "longer lifespan" enables Him to be more patient than we are. Fortunately.

I like the 1st Creation account in Genesis, which basically echos the
evolutionist sequence of events.

Any comments about dark matter causing the universe to accelerate
its expansion? Any salient biblical passages to consider in this regard?

No, but the observational discrepancies which led to the concept of "dark matter" go away if one substitutes Lorenzian Relativity for Special Relativity. There are a group of Astronomers who favor this approach and claim that all of the successful predictions which led to the acceptance of Special Relativity are also satisfied for Lorenzian Relativity. Interesting, but the arguments pro and con are beyond my capabilities in that field. Curiously the GPS seems to work despite Special Relativity indicating it shouldn't. http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/

I am interested in the "latent capabilities" you mention. Possibly "leftover
capabilities" from when the environment demanded them? Examples or
references?

Try searching GOOGLE and Wikipedia for evo-devo.

Is the appendix an example of a "latent capability?"

I have a 1931 book (The Science of Life) by Julian Huxley, the grandson of Darwin's "bulldog" and one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis (NeoDarwinism) which lists over 100 vestigial organs.

But that list has now been pared down by further discoveries to just a handful, and some of those are problematic. It has been shown that the appendix is more vital during early human life and it still serves some residual function as an adult as part of the immune system. It seems to me that loss of function is not a powerful argument against creation unless you believe the "straw man" that God originally created life as perfect and no changes have ever taken place since then.

 

[Supremum]

Summary of the major findings which support YEC and a 6 day Creation.

1) Expansion of the universe - Big Bangers assume an initial ultra rapid expansion of the universe, which incidentally if continued at their assumed rate of expansion for only 0.000000000000000000000001 seconds more would have yielded the current size of the universe. I then assume the expansion ceased. By an amazing coincidence this is essentially what the Bible claimed in many different books when it said: "In the beginning God stretched out the heavens".

"Big Bangers" don't assume a time period for initial expansion. The planck time is the amount of time it took for the universe to expand to its critical density(it becomes less dense until it can obey the Exclusion Principle.) It did not last any longer. The last part is an amazing coincidence, isn't it? Wow.

2) It appears that the expansion would have had an effect on the decay rates of radiogenic material formed during the creation of the universe. However, many of the equations for energy release, etc. in physics have the light speed variable within them, so it appears that heat release, etc. would not be negatively affected. So it is quite possible that the rocks of which the Earth has been formed would not be as old as people typically calculate, since they do not take into account the decay rate speedup during the expansion.

Which expansion are you talking about here? Multiple nucleon nuclei weren't capable of forming until .001 s after the Big Bang. As for energy conservation equations, the c^-2 term is only used when using eV units, simply using Joules makes your point moot. The uranium ores used to calculate the age of the Earth were created at the Earth's formation, and have been in the same inertial reference frame ever since. Btw, 4.5 billion years.

3) It now appears from research in the new field of evo-devo (as well as the atavisms pointed out by Gould) that genomes of animals (and other lifeforms) contain "latent capabilities" which were probably designed into them by God when He created the first lifeforms in multiple types. These latent capabilities can be "triggered" by environmental cues to permit rapid changes in the morphologies of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. Such latent capabilities would have to be designed in advance, since natural selection works only with what is presented to it by variation: it does not "look ahead". Thus only a few different kinds of animals had to be on the Ark in order to repopulate the world within the few thousand years since the Flood, because the evo-devo paradigm shows that variations (as well as adaptations) can happen extremely rapidily when conditions require it.

Johnny or Noguru could talk about this better than I.

Curiously the GPS seems to work despite Special Relativity indicating it shouldn't.

:rotfl: GPS is the greatest achievement of Special Relativity.

 

[bob b]

"Big Bangers" don't assume a time period for initial expansion. The planck time is the amount of time it took for the universe to expand to its critical density(it becomes less dense until it can obey the Exclusion Principle.) It did not last any longer. The last part is an amazing coincidence, isn't it? Wow.

Yes, I was amazed when I used their numbers for the initial duration and rate that only one more of their inconceivably small time intervals yielded the current estimate of the size of the universe, 13.5 billion light years. I don't believe in "coincidences" like that. As Hoyle said about the physical constants, "somebody seems to have monkeyed with them". Quite an admission for an atheist.

Which expansion are you talking about here? Multiple nucleon nuclei weren't capable of forming until .001 s after the Big Bang. As for energy conservation equations, the c^-2 term is only used when using eV units, simply using Joules makes your point moot.

It is amusing to me that people can be so certain about things that can never be completely validated by experiment.

The uranium ores used to calculate the age of the Earth were created at the Earth's formation, and have been in the same inertial reference frame ever since. Btw, 4.5 billion years.

How can you be so sure when the radioactive elements found within the Earth were first formed?

:rotfl: GPS is the greatest achievement of Special Relativity.

According to its supporters, but not its critics. Read the link and comment back here. I would like to hear the other side of the argument. The technical article that appeared in Physics Letters A is on the web someplace. I saw it once but the equations did not show up on my screen.

 

[chatmaggot]

...I like the 1st Creation account in Genesis, which basically echos the evolutionist sequence of events....

That's not true.

According to the TOE stars came before the earth, yet the bible says that the earth was created first.

The TOE says that birds came from dinosaurs...yet the bible says that birds came first.

The TOE says that sea creatures such as whales evolved from cowlike ancestors...yet the bible says that sea creatures came before land animals.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

According to the TOE stars came before the earth, yet the bible says that the earth was created first.

Since when does TOE have anything to do with cosmology?

 

[Johnny]

It is amusing to me that people can be so certain about things that can never be completely validated by experiment.

I'm a bit amused that you invoke the inflation model when it works in your favor, but you quickly strike it down as unverifiable as soon as it's pointed out that under the assumptions made by the inflation model your idea is impossible. How silly. But I think the most interesting question that needs to be asked is why you feel it is justifiable to invoke the inflation model. Do you support the science behind it? If not, then you can't possible throw your support behind an assumption-based modification of the model -- even if it gives you the peace of mind of comfortably integrating a creation scenario with science.

 

[Adam_Kratt]

Sunday June 3, 2007, 2pm at Caltech. A Physics Professor claims he will prove the existance of God using science

 

[bob b]

Sunday June 3, 2007, 2pm at Caltech. A Physics Professor claims he will prove the existance of God using science

Frank Tipler?

 

[bob b]

BINGO!!!

I guessed right. I happen to have been reading his book, The Physics of Christianity, just this past week, and still have it on my nightstand.

What a wild ride!!!

-------

Event Date: June 3, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Location: Baxter Lecture Hall
Speakers:
Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University and the author of The Physics of Christianity, The Physics of Immortality, and The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
Dr. Lawrence Krauss is Professor of Physics and Astronomy and Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, and the author of Hiding in the Mirror, Atom, Quintessence, and The Physics of Star Trek.
In his book, The Physics of Christianity, Dr. Tipler argues that the God depicted by Jews and Christians, the Uncaused First Cause, is completely consistent with the Cosmological Singularity, an entity whose existence is required by physical law.

 

[bob b]

I'm a bit amused that you invoke the inflation model when it works in your favor, but you quickly strike it down as unverifiable as soon as it's pointed out that under the assumptions made by the inflation model your idea is impossible. How silly. But I think the most interesting question that needs to be asked is why you feel it is justifiable to invoke the inflation model. Do you support the science behind it? If not, then you can't possible throw your support behind an assumption-based modification of the model -- even if it gives you the peace of mind of comfortably integrating a creation scenario with science.

I have never supported the inflation model in the sense that I believe it is totally correct.

One important reason is that it includes the "multiverse" idea, multiple parallel universes, billions and trillions of them without limit.

But the concept of ultrarapid expansion leads to a number of interesting side effects: one of them that it explains how we can see starlight from stars billions of light years (distance) away. Most people are confused by the terminology of light years of distance into thinking that this necessarily means that it would take that many years of time for light to reach us from those stars.

That of course would be true for any light emitted starting today, but it would not be the case for light emitted during the expansion process. So I "borrowed" the idea of rapid expansion, because it solves the starlight travel time problem and is also consistent with the Bible's claim (in many different books) that God "stretched out the heavens".

If God had taken a full Earth day to expand the universe to its present size, this would not change any of my conclusions, because the "redshift" effect depends on the amount of expansion not the rate.

 

[lucaspa]

Summary of the major findings which support YEC and a 6 day Creation.

First, before we get to individual examples, you have to remember that "findings which support" don't count in science because you can find support for any theory if that is all you are looking for. And support is all you are looking for. What really counts is the evidence against a theory, and the evidence falsifying YEC and a recent 6 days creation is already there and hasn't gone away. YEC was falslified by 1831.

1) Expansion of the universe - Big Bangers assume an initial ultra rapid expansion of the universe, which incidentally if continued at their assumed rate of expansion for only 0.000000000000000000000001 seconds more would have yielded the current size of the universe. I then assume the expansion ceased. By an amazing coincidence this is essentially what the Bible claimed in many different books when it said: "In the beginning God stretched out the heavens".

Are you referring to inflation? No, expansion did NOT cease. In fact, the universe is still expanding today. That means the Bible claims are wrong, since the Bible says the stretching was in the past, not the present.

2) It appears that the expansion would have had an effect on the decay rates of radiogenic material formed during the creation of the universe.

No. Inflation would not have affected radiogenic decay rates.

However, many of the equations for energy release, etc. in physics have the light speed variable within them,

The speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a "variable". It is a constant. IF it varied in the past, say was a lot faster so that light from distant galaxies could reach earth in 6,000 years, then since E = mc^2, then the increased release of energy from the speeded up decay rates or speeded up light speed would have melted the earth.

3) It now appears from research in the new field of evo-devo (as well as the atavisms pointed out by Gould) that genomes of animals (and other lifeforms) contain "latent capabilities" which were probably designed into them by God when He created the first lifeforms in multiple types. These latent capabilities can be "triggered" by environmental cues to permit rapid changes in the morphologies of animals, plants, bacteria, etc.

Nope. What the research shows is that such suppressed developmental pathways become distorted because harmful mutations build up in them and are not cleared by natural selection. So the resulting animals are remarkably deformed. Here are some of the relevant papers:
2. E Pennisi, Heat shock protein mutes genetic changes. Science 282: 1796, Dec. 4, 1998. HSP 90 suppresses some developmental pathways, allowing them to accumulate mutations. When HSP 90 is tied up protecting from heat stress,then these pathways become active, giving large morphological changes since thesmall mutations are in HOX genes.
3. SL Rutherford and S Lindquist, HSP90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nature 396: 336-342, Nov.26, 1998. Primary paper for above. Look at pictures of large changes in the flies.

Any "latent capabilities designed in advance" would be distorted by the mutations and would no longer exist.

What evo-devo has shown is that random variation can be introduced into genomes very fast. Obviously not fast enough, since there is a lot of extinction.

Bob, you mention variability since the Flood, but what about all those species that went extinct in the Flood, like dinos or early amphibians. Shouldn't we be seeing these species today because wouldn't they have been taken on board the Ark?

 

[lucaspa]

I have never supported the inflation model in the sense that I believe it is totally correct.

One important reason is that it includes the "multiverse" idea, multiple parallel universes, billions and trillions of them without limit.

No, it doesn't. Multiverse is a separate theory from Inflation.

That of course would be true for any light emitted starting today, but it would not be the case for light emitted during the expansion process.

Yes, it would. After all, according to Inflation the space expanded faster than the speed of light. So the light would have been left behind, not caught up.

If God had taken a full Earth day to expand the universe to its present size, this would not change any of my conclusions, because the "redshift" effect depends on the amount of expansion not the rate.

Redshift depends on relative velocities in space, not on expansion. That is, redshift tells us how fast two bodies are moving away from each other. This, of course, increases the time light takes to get to us.

Say you are in a car chasing a person running away from you. You are going 20 mph and the person is 1 mile from you. If the person is standing still, it will take 1/20 of an hour, or 3 minutes to get to them. However, if the person is running away from you at 10 miles per hour (a 6 minute mile), it will take you approximately 9 minutes to get to them. Because in the time it took you to cover 1 mile, the person had moved 0.5 miles further away, so you have to go further.

And yes, a light-year is both a distance and time measurement. It is the distance light travels in a year. So if an object is 1 light year away, it took a year for the light to get to you (assuming you both are at rest relative to each other).

 

[Mr Jack]

1) Expansion of the universe - Big Bangers assume an initial ultra rapid expansion of the universe, which incidentally if continued at their assumed rate of expansion for only 0.000000000000000000000001 seconds more would have yielded the current size of the universe. I then assume the expansion ceased. By an amazing coincidence this is essentially what the Bible claimed in many different books when it said: "In the beginning God stretched out the heavens".

No, Scientists deduced from observational physics that the universe underwent a initial ultra rapid expansion which produced effects that have since been confirmed by observation.

You, on the other hand, played with some number, ignore the evidence and have no observational confirmation for your silly notions.

:dunce:

 

[lucaspa]

In his book, The Physics of Christianity, Dr. Tipler argues that the God depicted by Jews and Christians, the Uncaused First Cause, is completely consistent with the Cosmological Singularity, an entity whose existence is required by physical law.

Notice the bold. That's true. But God is not required. That is, there are other First Causes posited, and they are also consistent with the singularity Big Bang. However, there are physicists who are looking at ways to get rid of the singularity:
http://faraday.fc.up.pt/cfp/Members/miguelc/selected_pub/Orientifolds as just one example.

So the phrase "required by physical law" is not accurate.

What this means is that God is still one of many candidates for First Cause. Not that physics "proves" the existence of God.

 

[bob b]

First, before we get to individual examples, you have to remember that "findings which support" don't count in science because you can find support for any theory if that is all you are looking for. And support is all you are looking for. What really counts is the evidence against a theory, and the evidence falsifying YEC and a recent 6 days creation is already there and hasn't gone away. YEC was falslified by 1831.

I think it is unwise of you to in effect claim that the science in 1831 was sufficient to falsify YEC. Nevertheless I would be interested in any information you could post to amplify your claim.

Are you referring to inflation? No, expansion did NOT cease. In fact, the universe is still expanding today. That means the Bible claims are wrong, since the Bible says the stretching was in the past, not the present.

How would anyone know if the expansion had stopped? Be specific.

No. Inflation would not have affected radiogenic decay rates.

Another unsupported assertion.

The speed of light in a vacuum is NOT a "variable". It is a constant. IF it varied in the past, say was a lot faster so that light from distant galaxies could reach earth in 6,000 years, then since E = mc^2, then the increased release of energy from the speeded up decay rates or speeded up light speed would have melted the earth.

As Guth, the inventor of "inflation" explained in his book (and this is also mentioned in Wikipedia) light waves can propogate faster than the speed of light because of the expansion of the universe, which in turn is not limited because it is not physical objects which are moving but the effect of the coordinates expanding.

Nope. What the research shows is that such suppressed developmental pathways become distorted because harmful mutations build up in them and are not cleared by natural selection. So the resulting animals are remarkably deformed. Here are some of the relevant papers:
2. E Pennisi, Heat shock protein mutes genetic changes. Science 282: 1796, Dec. 4, 1998. HSP 90 suppresses some developmental pathways, allowing them to accumulate mutations. When HSP 90 is tied up protecting from heat stress,then these pathways become active, giving large morphological changes since thesmall mutations are in HOX genes.
3. SL Rutherford and S Lindquist, HSP90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nature 396: 336-342, Nov.26, 1998. Primary paper for above. Look at pictures of large changes in the flies.

These people seem to be "barking up the wrong tree" because "hypermutation" (what you are describing) would certainly lead to "error catastrophe".

Any "latent capabilities designed in advance" would be distorted by the mutations and would no longer exist.

But according to the "experts" they have persisted for hundreds of thousands of generations. The solution to this apparent dilemma is obvious: the long time scale is in error, there have been too few generations since the Flood for the latent capabilities to have been erased by mutations.

What evo-devo has shown is that random variation can be introduced into genomes very fast. Obviously not fast enough, since there is a lot of extinction.

You misread the results because of your commitment to long time scales and your belief that making mistakes is a way to improve genomes.. Speeding up the error rate is not an effective way to gain function, but it is an obvious way to become extinct.

Bob, you mention variability since the Flood, but what about all those species that went extinct in the Flood, like dinos or early amphibians. Shouldn't we be seeing these species today because wouldn't they have been taken on board the Ark?

Amphibians probably didn't need to be put on the Ark. Some dinosaurs probably were on the Ark, but the tales of knights slaying dragons might have some truth to them. Plus it wouldn't surprise me if some of the tales coming out of the swamps of the Congo would turn out to be turn. Pandas were once thought to be "fairytales"

Also new species are still being discovered today and I keep a list of lifeforms which were thought to be extinct, but have been found living today ("living fossils"). That indicates to me that it was the Flood which rapidly buried most of the fossils seen today. That unique process of fossilization is not occurring today to any extent.

 

[Mr Jack]

No, Scientists deduced from observational physics that the universe underwent a initial ultra rapid expansion which produced effects that have since been confirmed by observation.

You, on the other hand, played with some number, ignore the evidence and have no observational confirmation for your silly notions.

Hmm... I appear to have had a grammar bypass before posting this. :bannana: Apologies

:limey:

 

[bob b]

No, it doesn't. Multiverse is a separate theory from Inflation.

Not really.

Wikipedia:
Bubble theory posits an infinite number of open multiverses, each with different physical constants. (The set of bubble universes is thus a Level II multiverse.) Counterintuitively, these universes are farther away than even the farthest universe in our open multiverse, which is itself infinitely far from us.

The formation of our universe from a "bubble" of a multiverse was proposed by Andre Linde. This Bubble universe theory fits well with the widely accepted theory of inflation (i.e. Linde's modification of Guth's idea bob b).

Andrei Linde Born March 2, 1948
Moscow, USSR
Nationality Russian
Field Physics
Institutions Stanford University
Known for Inflationary universe
Notable prizes Dirac Medal

Yes, it would. After all, according to Inflation the space expanded faster than the speed of light. So the light would have been left behind, not caught up.

Expansion is in the coordinates of space. All points expand equally, including lightwaves. There could be no "falling behind".

Redshift depends on relative velocities in space, not on expansion. That is, redshift tells us how fast two bodies are moving away from each other. This, of course, increases the time light takes to get to us.

Velocity redshift is different than expansion redshift which is different than gravity redshift.

During the expansion process the "effective" speed of light is as much as millions of times faster than its speed when expansion stops.

And yes, a light-year is both a distance and time measurement. It is the distance light travels in a year. So if an object is 1 light year away, it took a year for the light to get to you (assuming you both are at rest relative to each other).

True for lightwaves omitted today, but not during a rapid expansion of the coordinates of space.

Inflation was invented to solve the "horizon problem", which is a travel-time problem.

See Wikipedia for details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

 

[chatmaggot]

Since when does TOE have anything to do with cosmology?

Are you serious? Is Cosmological Evolution not considered evolution anymore?

http://cosmos.astro.caltech.edu/

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Cosmic_Evolution_index.html