by Steve Risner
This week, I plan to expand on a little information I gave in my
last blog post about redshift and the evidence that seems to indicate we are very near the center of the universe. The atheist knows this information is destructive to their worldview and their origins myth, so they've invented something called the cosmological principle. This principle states that regardless of where you are in the universe, it would appear you are in the center. Why? Because then they don't have to explain all the evidence that indicates we are at or near the center of the universe. It's quite remarkable, really, and very convenient for them.
Redshift, as I explained in my last couple of blog posts
here and
here, is the shifting of light from objects in space that are far from us towards the red portion of the light spectrum. This means that the light is actually stretched a little. Why this happens is a total mystery, although some will tell you we know exactly what's happening. Be leery of accepting much at all from those people, as they're heaped in assumptions and unsupportable or unprovable assertions. There are a host of different reasons that have been put forward to explain redshift. Some are liked a lot (because they support the Big Bang theory) and some are not (although they're just as viable as explanations).
Something that is really interesting to me is that the amount of redshift is different depending on the object. We assume this means the objects are different distances from us. There is an issue with this, however. Some objects that orbit each other (binary stars) can have very different redshifts. This is strange because although they may be moving in different directions in relation to each other, they are really moving through space together, so they're very close to each other. There are galaxies that actually are touching each other that have vastly different redshifts. This seems odd, right? If they're close enough to be in contact with each other, why would their redshifts tell us they're very different distances from us? Astronomers have noted that some objects with redshift appear to have a decreasing redshift over time, as well. That's interesting. There are also some objects that are not redshifted at all but have a blueshift. This means the opposite—that the objects are moving towards us.
M31 (aka the Andromeda Galaxy), a galaxy relatively close by, is apparently moving towards us and is blueshifted.
Barnard's Star is also moving towards us, apparently, at about 110-140 km/s. I'm not sure why anything is moving towards is when the universe is allegedly expanding so quickly and has been doing so for so long. But they paint nice pictures about it to explain some of the evidence and hand wave the rest with made up ideas like the cosmological principle. Truthfully, I'm not saying any of their ideas are incorrect. I'm just saying we don't know if they are and really have no way of testing if they are correct.
I believe one of the greatest evidences for the earth (or at least the Milky Way) being near the center of the universe is the quantization of redshifts. This means that rather than the smooth increase in redshift we'd expect if the Big Bang is true, we see a sort of stair stepping of the redshift. This means that these objects (generally galaxies) are arranged in shells around us, clearly placing us at or near the center of the universe. This is like if we are in the center of an onion and each layer of the onion marks a band of galaxies around us. To suggest this would be the case regardless of where we are in space seems to defy common sense and our experience with reality. These findings, by the way, support creationist cosmologies like the one suggested by Dr. Russell Humphreys. Speaking of Dr. Humphreys, he says, “The technical literature of astronomy almost completely ignores a galactocentric [our galaxy is near the center of the universe] cosmos as a possible explanation for redshift quantization. Instead, secular astronomers appear to prefer some as-yet-unexplained microscopic phenomenon affecting the light itself, either in its emission from atoms or its transmission through space… Thus secular astronomers have avoided the simple explanation, most not even mentioning it as a possibility. Instead, they have grasped at a straw they would normally disdain, by invoking mysterious unknown physics. I suggest that they are avoiding the obvious because galactocentricity brings into question their deepest worldviews. This issue cuts right to the heart of the big bang theory—its naturalistic evolutionist presuppositions.”
Perhaps you're wondering if the quantization is real. Have they really confirmed it's there? Yes. Many times over. It was first discovered by Tifft and later confirmed by Napier and Guthrie as well as others. Dr. Humphreys remarks, “It appears that redshift quantization—the phenomenon itself, not the theories trying to explain it—has survived a quarter-century of peer review.” That says something, I guess. It is rather telling that they won't even consider the obvious reason for the evidence—that it means what it appears to mean. They need to essentially ignore the findings or sit back and wait for some miraculous find that will explain the numbers.
Why does it matter if we are in the center of the universe (or near it)? Well, let's compare
Carl Sagan's ideas about our position in the universe with a Biblical perspective. Sagan says, “The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena … Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light [an image of Earth taken by Voyager I]. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.” This is the despair and hopelessness that abounds in atheism. What a torturous way to view life and the cosmos. He believes we are nothing special in this universe at all.
But the Bible tells us something very different. You see, the earth being near the center of the universe wasn't man's idea as Sagan seems to think. It was God's idea. We're just observing that position in the vastness of space. To further quote Humphreys: “It is very encouraging to see evidence for the centrality of humans to the plan of God. It was a sin on this planet that subjected the entire universe to groaning and travailing (
Romans 8:22). Ours is the planet where the Second Person of the Trinity took on the (human) nature of one of His creatures to redeem not only us, but also the entire cosmos (
Romans 8:21). This knowledge that God gave minuscule mankind prime real estate in a vast cosmos astounds and awes us, as
Psalm 8:3-4 says: ‘When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have ordained; What is man, that you are mindful of him? and the son of man, that you visit him?’”
How different could those worldviews be displayed? One is heaped in darkness and meaninglessness and despair, while the other is full of hope and life and purpose. Which seems to make the most sense? The evidence, if we can believe what we observe, is fairly clear. The “scientists” are the group of people who refuse to follow the evidence. Once again, we see that the Biblical worldview is supported by the evidence while the humanist worldview requires special pleading and a great deal of assumption. Don't worry: your faith is confirmed by solid evidence.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
10 comments:
I believe Einstein who originally came up with the Cosmological Constant said it was his biggest blunder. Yet, the secularists absolutely insist on using it, when the guy who came up with it said it was no good. The desperation to keep an unscientific and unsupportable worldview so they don't have to believe God is glaringly obvious.
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/its-where-its-at.html
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/looks-like-im-stuck-in-middle-with-you.html
More dogmatism (at times) about science from zealot Christians - though some of the information on possible quantized redshifts is new to me and I am not kneejerk rejecting all of it because I would only do that when I was sure it was all wrong or misleading.
Steve claimed last week: "According to a variety of observations, we, the earth or at least the Milky Way galaxy, appear to be very near the center of the universe". He also mentioned statements by fellow YEC Russell Humphreys - I see that in a 2002 CMI web article Humphreys suggested "the groups of [quantized] redshifts would be distinct from each other only if our viewing location is less than a million light years from the centre [of the universe]".
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
However redshift quantization is not (yet) a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization
The international scientific community believes the universe is expanding uniformly, and not from a 'centre' close to Earth. Although anisotropies do exist, the universe is apparently statistically homogeneous on scales larger than 250 million light years.
cont'd
Steve also appears to think the Bible teaches a geocentric universe (not merely the error implied in some Bible verses such as Psalm 19:6 that the Sun orbits the Earth on a daily 'circuit' and Earth therefore 'must' be at the centre of the solar system at least). Is there some Bible verse that astronomers - in proposing the Copernican and cosmological principles and saying the universe has no centre - are in denial of? Or are their proposals simply based on observation of nature and resulting hypotheses? Incidentally on your redshift points, I believe William Tifft has not claimed that the universe is not expanding.
In his blog today (11 August) Steve claims: "The atheist knows this information is destructive to their worldview and their origins myth". But that would only be the case if it confirmed the Bible or some other sacred religious text. (I could not see in that Humphreys dogma article - see its title - any reference to any Bible verse that suggests Earth is physically at the or near to the centre of the universe/everything. He does quote the Bible - and I now see that you quote him - but the verses do not suggest geocentrism. Geocentrism rather was a belief held by various ancient civilisations, including the Greeks; some modern fundamentalist Christians still hold to this as being either 'biblical' or more in accordance with the Bible than the alternative.)
But these days the main YEC organisations appear to be firmly rejecting geocentrism:
http://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism (article from 2015)
Yet you opine: "But the Bible tells us something very different. You see, the earth being near the center of the universe wasn't man's idea as Sagan seems to think. It was God's idea." Really? Where does the Bible tell us the Earth is near the centre of the universe? I'd like to know if you can tell me.
"I'm not sure why anything is moving towards is when the universe is allegedly expanding so quickly and has been doing so for so long". I'm no cosmologist but I would assume that this is because of the proximity of galaxies in the 'local group' and due to gravity (or hypothesised dark matter) overcoming redshift (and/or hypothesised dark energy).
Oh, and despite my Wikipedia link to the topic of quantized redshift, you insist today: "Perhaps you're wondering if the quantization is real. Have they really confirmed it's there? Yes. Many times over." This from the person who denies point blank that the Oort Cloud exists.
Why has Charlie in his comment not made clear that the cosmological constant and the cosmological principle are two entirely different things? Either he does not know himself, or he wants other readers to confuse the two, or he is simply being sloppy.
I am also emailing this to Worldview Warriors.
Ashley
thanks again, man, for reading. I appreciate the comments. I'm sorry for the delay. I am supposed to approve comments on my blog posts and, frankly, I've been extremely busy--much more so than I usually am. Working, moving my business so I'm very busy with demo and construction of a new facility, 5 kids, a small farm at home, ministries at church and my wife all make for very little extra time. But that's just an excuse. I'm sorry.
You claimed that quantization is not yet a fact. This is terribly inaccurate. It was established initially 40 years ago this year, I believe, and has been confirmed numerous times by many different people--few if any of whom are creationists and some with the intent of debunking it.
"The international scientific community believes the universe is expanding uniformly, and not from a 'centre' close to Earth. "--this is because if they don't believe this (it is clearly a belief and you called it as such) they will have no choice but to accept that we are, in fact, in a special position in the universe. This will, of course, force them rethink how they are connected with their Creator.
"Although anisotropies do exist, the universe is apparently statistically homogeneous on scales larger than 250 million light years.
"--there is no homogeneity, sir. That's a farce. It also contradicts your big bang and even if it seemed homogeneous after 250 million ly, doesn't that seem odd? Why wouldn't the universe be smooth all over? There are so many unexplained things with the big bang it's amazing anyone has time for it. It's certainly not really worth my time.
You claim I believe in geocentrism based on the Bible(not the kind concerning our solar system but of a universal kind). This is obviously not true from the reading here. If you think otherwise, quote me. Otherwise, discontinue false allegations please. The Bible in no way suggests the earth is at the center of the solar system. Please stop straw manning.
"in proposing the Copernican and cosmological principles and saying the universe has no centre "--correct! it's a proposal. It's not factual at all and has no basis in the evidence. It merely allows them to continue to deny the God they know exists. Hubble said so himself! Quantization beautifully demonstrates that the universe did not arise from some unexplainable explosion billions of years ago. The fact that no one is talking about quantization is a huge red flag, man. They avoid it like the plague because it'll kill their (and your) humanism.
" Or are their proposals simply based on observation of nature and resulting hypotheses"--absolutely not based on observation. How could it be?
"I believe William Tifft has not claimed that the universe is not expanding. "--I don't care if the universe is or is not expanding. I don't know if it is or not (and neither does anyone else for that matter). It makes no difference to me. It's important to you for obvious reasons. There are plenty of Biblical based cosmologies that incorporate expansion. Some current expansion. Some past expansion. Others still no expansion. It makes no difference to me and you can't say either way.
" But that would only be the case if it confirmed the Bible or some other sacred religious text"--no. This is not correct. It would be damning to their philosophy because it would place us in a special position in the universe which is statistically highly improbable. So they would be forced to concede that the earth was placed here. ---you then go on to further suggest I'm using the Bible as my reason for the centrality argument when the entire blog post talks about quantization. I reference the earth being special according to the Bible near the end of the post, but did not say anything about our position in the universe.
"but the verses do not suggest geocentrism. Geocentrism rather was a belief held by various ancient civilisations, including the Greeks; some modern fundamentalist Christians still hold to this as being either 'biblical' or more in accordance with the Bible than the alternative"--you're actually telling me that I'm right here while trying to say I'm wrong. This is crazy. The earth, according to observation, is very near the center of the universe. The Bible says God created us and the universe. No one is using the Word of God to say we're near the center of the universe. The Bible makes no such claims. You're talking about geocentrism and then talking about what I'm talking about. They are not the same thing at all. Please don't equivocate...or perhaps it's a red herring.
"But these days the main YEC organisations appear to be firmly rejecting geocentrism:"--because no one believes the sun and planets go around the earth. Catch up, brother.
"Where does the Bible tell us the Earth is near the centre of the universe? I'd like to know if you can tell me. "--the idea is very clearly expressed in the concluding paragraphs, Ashley. Please take a look. It says we are special. I did not intend to say we are near the center of the universe because the Bible says so. If you understood my comments as such, I apologize for the confusion. It's my fault. If we are near the center--then we are here because God placed us here. The observations are pretty clear. As a result, Hubble coined the cosmological principle with the expressed purpose of rejecting the "horror" that is "intolerable" to him--this being we are special and placed in the center of the universe. We are certainly the center of God's attention.
"I'm no cosmologist but I would assume that this is because of the proximity of galaxies in the 'local group' and due to gravity (or hypothesised dark matter) overcoming redshift (and/or hypothesised dark energy). "--I get that. But if the universe has expanded to some 100 billion light years and it's only 14 billion light years old, ....do the math. That's a huge velocity of expansion and no gravity would overcome that force. It didn't overcome it when gravity held everything in a singularity. Granted, if the universe has expanded to 100 billion light years, that's about 50 billion light years from the center...although there is no center because, you know, that makes sense. But that puts the expansion at a very high velocity, does it not?
"This from the person who denies point blank that the Oort Cloud exists. "---ha ha ha! You got a photo of it? You been there? Ya, no one else can show us where it is either. You're too much, man, but I appreciate the laugh.
Steve (your first reply)
Thanks (I don't object to delays if posts eventually appear). I appreciate your busyness.
Redshift quantization is a hypothesis not a fact.
My statement about a statistically homogeneous universe was taken from this. I did not make it up. You simply contradict me (without backing up your statement):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
"You claim I believe in geocentrism based on the Bible ...". I was not 'straw manning'. I drew a reasonable conclusion from your words: "He believes we are nothing special in this universe at all. But the Bible tells us something very different. You see, the earth being near the center of the universe wasn't man's idea as Sagan seems to think. It was God's idea." As indeed I explicitly stated in my preceding comment. (Geocentrism about Earth's physical position not just it being 'special'.) Perhaps you need to be clearer in your words? That being a charitable interpretation.
But I continue to suggest that I did not in fact misread you (ie you were clear) and you really were implying Biblical support for geocentrism. Until you realised you could not point to specific verses (and that other YECs have rejected the idea).
I note that the Hubble quotation you allude to is 80 years old ie we know more about the universe than we did then:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Horror_of_a_unique_position
Ashley
Steve (your second reply)
"I reference the earth being special according to the Bible near the end of the post, but did not say anything about our position in the universe." Not so. You wrote: "He believes we are nothing special in this universe at all. But the Bible tells us something very different. You see, the earth being near the center of the universe wasn't man's idea as Sagan seems to think. It was God's idea". Thus you implied biblical support for Earth being special and also for geocentrism (in the universe). God's 'idea' being something God did - and which only the Bible tells us of (scientists don't).
"you're actually telling me that I'm right here while trying to say I'm wrong.". No, I am not. In my bracketed words I was implying that some fundamentalist Christians think geocentrism in the universe ought to be in the Bible (despite no specific verse pointing to it) or else they deduce that a universe with no obvious physical centre is 'unbiblical'. Clearly in the past a large number of people, including some Christians, held to geocentrism. I was not, I repeat not, agreeing that geocentrism is true (because of the 'fact' of quantized redshift). Something that Jonathan Sarfati (no dunce) and Robert Carter appeared totally ignorant of (or were deliberately ignoring?) when they penned that 2015 CMI article that I referenced - refuting 'absolute geocentrism'.
"Because no one believes the sun and planets go around the earth." No. The Sarfati-Carter article is not about geocentrism versus heliocentrism within the solar system (only). The full title of the article is 'Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth. Refuting absolute geocentrism'.
I suggest you take a closer look at it - instead of telling me to 'catch up'. For instance the article's introduction states: "Today, we accept a “geokinetic” (moving-earth) view based on the work of Newton and Einstein." And the Conclusion states "it is clear that absolute geocentrism has extreme problems".
Can you point to a statement in this article where they authors argue that the solar system (or Earth specifically) is very close to the centre of the universe (despite Earth orbiting the Sun)?
"I did not intend to say we are near the center of the universe because the Bible says so. If you understood my comments as such, I apologize for the confusion." I have only just read those words (after submitting the first reply above). That being the case, do you believe in geocentrism solely because of the claimed fact of quantized redshift and because the Bible suggests that Earth and humanity are 'special'? Even though many YECs seek to refute the notion of 'absolute' geocentrism (not just that the Sun 'orbits' the Earth).
Have you got a photograph, or other proof, of quantized redshift?
Ashley
Ashley, thanks again for your time.
How could I be very clear on something but imply something? Again, I apologize for the unclear intent of my statements. I do not and have never thought the Bible gave us clear comments on the position of the earth in the cosmos. "It was God's idea" is simply a statement that, if we are actually near the center of the universe, and there is observational evidence to suggest this, it's not man's idea. We didn't invent the observations. We're clearly central to His working in the universe, which is what the Scriptural references were indicating. But if we are central to the universe He spoke into being, who can be blamed for that other than Him?
Quantized redshift is one of the evidences that could lead me to believe we are nearly central in our location in the universe. This information was interesting to me: http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
This was better for me in terms of content and relative age of information: https://biblescienceforum.com/2014/05/26/our-galaxy-near-the-centre-of-concentric-spherical-shells-of-galaxies/#more-1763
The reason Hubble imagined the cosmo principle was a response to the data that long ago that indicated we were at or near the center of the universe. I've quote him many times referring to the "horror" of creation (which he implied) and how such an idea was "intolerable." I'm sure you've seen the statements he made. This was nearly 100 years ago. Quantized redshift is only 40 years of observation. It's stood for that long as a factual observation. The theories as to why have come and gone, but the fact that it's there seems fairly tenacious. However, the more I research it as well as other things, the more I find that brings its validity into question. However, the more I look into it, the more I find that seems to strengthen its genuineness. Deniers will grab whatever they can to discredit it (as the atheist's worldview is very threatened by such an idea) and supporters will do the same for their position. So it boils down to what you want to believe and that's really the case with almost any of this. I tend to believe the facts support my position more easily than that of the atheist, but I realize some of the evidence I would use to support my belief is also some of the evidence (interpreted differently) used to support the atheist's belief. It boils down to worldview and almost always does.
I appreciate the tone quite a bit more in your recent post(s). Thanks.
http://creation.com/refuting-geocentrism-response
This has just appeared. I don't have time to study it closely.
Please understand, Ashley, that I am not suggesting geocentrism (we are, as a planet, at the center of the solar system, galaxy, or universe) but that our galaxy is very near the center as indicated by the evidence. I, personally, don't even care if we're near the center. It wouldn't change my beliefs at all. However, if we are near the center of the universe, that would pose serious issues for the atheist, now wouldn't it.
Post a Comment