tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post6935816808948037595..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Brief Overview of Creationist Cosmologyjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-78227416975060863922023-06-27T10:01:47.003-07:002023-06-27T10:01:47.003-07:00Hi John,
I would like to notify you that the webs...Hi John,<br /><br />I would like to notify you that the website of Bary Setterfield had crashed and that he now has a new one, perhaps you can adjust this in the references so it can be found?<br />This is the functioning url: https://www.barrysetterfield.org/Data_and_Creation/ZPE-Plasma_model.html<br /><br />God bless, A. de BontA. de Bonthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16009163104816980753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-58791206119155999502023-04-15T05:42:21.935-07:002023-04-15T05:42:21.935-07:00"Strangely, over the last few decades—just as..."Strangely, over the last few decades—just as more sensitive measuring technology is available—c, h and m seem to be constant."<br /><br />Hmm, so you believe that "ever since the fathers fell asleep, [c, h and m] are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation"? 😉<br /><br />"Yet, how could God could create an entity that did not have an apparent history? . . . At creation, we can apply physical laws to calculate not only future states but also apparent past states. Thus, at creation, the universe inevitably appears to have had a previous history."<br /><br />The devil is in the details. If we traveled back in time and didn't know where/when we were, and if we met Adam and Eve outside the Garden, we'd naturally assume they'd grown from zygote to adult as per normal.<br /><br />So, up to a point, yes - creating anything from nothing requires apparent age.<br /><br />But would God have created Adam with a scar from a wound that never happened? No, because that isn't required for Adam to exist. Had God done so, that would've been deceptive.<br /><br />This applies directly to the examples you gave re. the cosmos: "the details of starlight seem to refer to specific historical events, such as supernova explosions. If such events never really occurred, does this not make God deceptive?"<br /><br />If God had created the apparent aftermath of a supernova - when no supernova actually occurred - and that apparent stellar remnant wasn't necessary to fulfill the purposes of the stars as given in Genesis 1 - then how could this not be deceptive?<br /><br />I would argue that when we see such phenomena, their "apparent" histories are real, not just apparent.<br /><br />Thus I think we're forced to go with, at least in part, Faulkner's suggestion of hyper ageing on Day 4. Or perhaps a mashup of Faulker and Setterfield's theories.<br /><br />"Science assumes that the cosmos operates through time by a continuum of physical cause and effect."<br /><br />But that wouldn't be a reasonable assumption when applied to Creation Week, would it?ajderxsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04977619864669702067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-14843262795734863452017-10-05T18:45:57.715-07:002017-10-05T18:45:57.715-07:00Dr. Byl, thank you for the article. I provide this...Dr. Byl, thank you for the article. I provide this link to a creationist cosmology.<br /><br />https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B87dCnn18bBASjQwMURZYTl1bm8/view<br />age2agehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272452517358306643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-3134332800651645232017-01-20T09:59:38.014-08:002017-01-20T09:59:38.014-08:00João Magueijo's theory, that the speed of ligh...João Magueijo's theory, that the speed of light was infinite at the big bang, has been around for about 20 years. It would be interesting if it could be tested as proposed. However, Faulkner's proposal is that all celestial processes are accelerated during Day 4, not just light. Just like Jonah's vine that grew miraculously overnight. This would not be testable, since after Day 4 those processes ran at the normal rate. Unlike Magueijo's theory, we have no mathematical formula for processes on Day 4, nor for their transition to current values.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-56305486925613192942017-01-15T12:38:33.227-08:002017-01-15T12:38:33.227-08:00Hello Dr Byl,
I note that you favor something alo...Hello Dr Byl,<br /><br />I note that you favor something along the lines of the Faulkner (2013) proposal as the solution to the light time travel problem:<br /><br />https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/a-proposal-for-a-new-solution-to-the-light-travel-time-problem/<br /><br />(Noted in a comment at the bottom of this post: http://bylogos.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/sarfatis-genesis-account.html#more)<br /><br />Have you any thoughts on this recent article in the Guardian, suggesting the testable possibility of an historically infinite speed of light?:<br /><br />https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/28/theory-challenging-einsteins-view-on-speed-of-light-could-soon-be-testedHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-43038108863146444972012-02-21T08:36:20.428-08:002012-02-21T08:36:20.428-08:00Yes, that's the basic idea.Yes, that's the basic idea.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-2480799913125803602012-02-21T06:32:18.459-08:002012-02-21T06:32:18.459-08:00Hi John,
So if I understand your explanation corre...Hi John,<br />So if I understand your explanation correctly here, at t=0 the light created on Day 1 reaching the earth and engulfing it would be coming from a direction that the sun and stars would be placed on Day 4 as light-bearers. The earth is rotating on its axis with normal 24-hour light and dark cycles just as we have today, yet that light if we 'could' calculate it at t<0 would have an apparent history, even an apparent history of a Supernova explosion in its past, and this apparent history is not deceptive on God's part in the same way the Sun created on Day 4 would be in thermonuclear equilibrium with photons already emanating from its surface and on their way across the solar system or mature trees created on Day 3 would have growth rings and fruit, or Adam created on Day 6 as a mature male would have hair under his arms?<br /><br />And to question why there is a supernova explosion in the light trail would be in the same sense to question why the mature tree has so many growth rings or why the mature rocks have so much radioactive decay of daughter elements in them? We just don't know, and <i>scientifically</i>, we'll never know, it being superfluous to try and find out. We'll never be able to investigate what the conditions were at t=0.<br /><br />Have I summarized it correctly?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-88477811839517089692012-02-20T16:08:35.734-08:002012-02-20T16:08:35.734-08:00Hi Steve
This is discussed in more detail in my p...Hi Steve<br /><br />This is discussed in more detail in my post "On Mature Creation".<br /><br />Science assumes that the cosmos is characterized by a continuum of physical cause and effect operating through time.<br /><br />For example, suppose that at creation (t=0) the Sun and Moon are in particular positions in the sky. Applying the laws of physics we can predict their positions at some later time t>0 after creation.<br /><br />However, by those same assumptions we could also calculate where the Sun and Moon would apparently have been at some time t<0 before creation.<br /><br />Thus, the state of the universe immediately after creation, if interpreted via general scientific assumptions, appears to have had a prior history.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-12346538564277503332012-02-19T06:00:14.058-08:002012-02-19T06:00:14.058-08:00Hi John,
'At creation, we can apply physical l...Hi John,<br /><i>'At creation, we can apply physical laws to calculate not only future states but also apparent past states. Thus, at creation, the universe inevitably appears to have had a previous history.'</i><br /><br />I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here in the first sentence above. Can you give an example of what you mean here about calculating future states as well as past states?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-42300581282354456382012-02-06T07:18:17.232-08:002012-02-06T07:18:17.232-08:00One problem I've encountered with possible cos...One problem I've encountered with possible cosmologies is that going back to earlier stages of process infers an innumerable amount of possibilities, while projecting into possible future progress from any one stage also infers innumerable possibilities. At any stage the possibilities going backwards or going forwards are endless. <br /><br />The idea of a possible cosmology is to suggest a reason why things went as they did. And this, it seems to me, is impossible. For there could also be reasons why things might have gone differently, or could have gone as they did for other reasons. <br /><br />It seems to me that the real question is not which possible cosmology is correct, but rather whether Genesis 1 is trustworthy. <br /><br />Some say, "Yes, but not for science" or, "Yes, but not for history"; but I say in response, "You have not proven this. So I say simply, "Yes, it is trustworthy"JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-73245291304792344702012-02-05T06:59:21.505-08:002012-02-05T06:59:21.505-08:00Quantum Greg,
Are you Greg of Drake Co.-Virginia f...Quantum Greg,<br />Are you Greg of Drake Co.-Virginia fame? What I meant to say above is that it it good to see you here at Dr. Byl's site enjoying his articles. If you are my cuz Greg, you can email me off line at drakesteve805@gmail.com.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-79772046523859150072012-02-05T06:31:58.494-08:002012-02-05T06:31:58.494-08:00Quantum Greg,
Good to see you hear cuz. We've ...Quantum Greg,<br />Good to see you hear cuz. We've got to get back in touch.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-25037696435640292462012-02-04T21:03:54.604-08:002012-02-04T21:03:54.604-08:00"Yet, how could God could create an entity th...<i>"Yet, how could God could create an entity that did not have an apparent history? Science assumes that the cosmos operates through time by a continuum of physical cause and effect. At creation, we can apply physical laws to calculate not only future states but also apparent past states. Thus, at creation, the universe inevitably appears to have had a previous history."</i><br /><br />Up until now I had considered "apparent history" taboo and had searched for other cosmologies like Hartnett and Humphreys. But the above makes so much sense, I'm satisfied with it! Thanks.QuantumGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07410047060125951426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-2176785764127087932012-01-31T14:17:28.042-08:002012-01-31T14:17:28.042-08:00This entry was very helpful to me, as I had contem...This entry was very helpful to me, as I had contemplated a few of those alternate hypotheses on my own. I especially was encouraged with your concluding remarks; I share your concern in point 2 of your Assessment. Thank you.JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.com