Cosmology Conference 2003 Review
The Cosmology Conference 2003 was a momentous occasion in science. The Creation Research, Science Education Foundation (CRSEF) organized the assembly of six researchers and an Ohio State University campus minister to explore the origin of the universe. The researchers included representatives from academia and industry. Scholars in Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Biology, and Information Technology, covered all the bases.
This Cosmology Conference was the first to present all the major theories of the origin of the universe, solar system, earth, and even events through the ice age. (None of the speakers vigorously defended the Big Bang.) Other conferences tend to limit their focus on explanations from relativity and quantum theory to support the views. This conference not only had theoretical representation of relativity and quantum models but dared to contradict them. An entirely new physical model of the atom and a model of nuclear synthesis at modest energy levels were explored.
I had some concern that this admix of theory would create animosity between the speakers. I was also warned that presenting such a variety of conflicting theories would only lead to a confused audience. Neither of these worries came to pass.
Authors of the new electrodynamics theory of the atom were anxious to review Setterfield’s theory of the progression of events through the ice age. This is not to say there will be agreement. But a willingness to review and hear diverse concepts was refreshing in light of the competition usually seen in the main stream theories that myopically focus on a relativistic quantum world. I am convinced God will reveal the true mechanism of His creation in a way that will amaze the secular world and surprise many creationists.
The idea that all these concepts would be confusing to the audience was also not at all the case. Rather it was like a light bulb being turned on in a dark room. The narrow path science has taken by limiting itself to secular notions has been expanded in three dimensions. This conference provided a better perspective even for the relativistic models. Instead of protecting the audience from too many ideas, CRSEF needs to be commended for respecting the audience’s discernment in these exciting areas of research.
Jerry Bergman introduced the concept of “True Believerism.” A “True Believer” is one who holds to a position in spite of incontrovertible opposing evidence. Scientists are just as likely to be afflicted as anyone else. This condition can affect any of us and we all need to guard against it.
Ed Boudreaux’s theory of the production of elements at temperatures far below the supernova “furnace” included an explanation of the dissipation of the heat in minutes because of positive and negative energy requirements in the element production. (That’s right -- the earth’s surface could cool to ambient temperatures in minutes!)
Dr. Boudreaux also provided an explanation of the conditions necessary to produce the mixture of isotopes we find in nature in a very short time (minutes) by accelerated decay when the earth was in a plasma state. Conventional decay requires millions of years.
Patrick Young explained relativity and quantum theory. He introduced problems with the theories and laid the ground work for Russell Humphreys’ theory of White Hole cosmology. Dr. Young pointed out the dangers to society when education is limited to only most favored theories. Following Dr. Young’s presentation Russ Humphreys’ video “Star Light and Time” was impressively presented on the big movie screen.
Astronomer Barry Setterfield, famous for his speed of light papers in the 1980's and 1990’s, presented his recent work on Quantisized Red Shift, and Zero Point Energy density changes contributing to the decay in the speed of light. Barry applies the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in his theories.
Barry Setterfield presented his hypothesis on evidence from the solar system, asteroids, Mars, Moon and Earth indicating two major catastrophes in addition to the flood. These three catastrophes better explain the physical evidence on the earth than a one year flood catastrophe alone. He described many physical changes in the earth progressing from the Fall to the Flood. Barry’s final lecture compared the atomic time of billions of years with the orbital time of thousands of years surrounding the progression of events in earth history.
Glen Collins presented the logic of a common sense approach to science and the violation of common sense and the scientific method in relativity and quantum theories. Dr. Collins explained the atomistic influence on science for centuries and the atheistic motivations that underlie relativity and quantum concepts. Collins presented rational reasons why we must seek a physical model of the atom. He illustrated the electron, proton and neutron in spiral ring configurations with models of diatomic hydrogen and neon. Dr. Collins went on to offer an explanation why improved electrodynamics is sufficient to explain all atomic forces.
Charles Lucas laid the basis for scientific inquiry with logical conditions that must not be violated in formulating theory. This is in stark contrast to relativity and quantum theories which demand that we abandon a strict adherence to logic and accept illogical conditions when required. The point particle is a specific example. Dr. Lucas then explained in greater depth the dynamics of the ring model of the atom. The nucleus was illustrated using a ring model of the neutron (a proton ring coaxial with the electron) and proton rings applying combinatorial geometry for logical positioning. Dr. Lucas, in a stunning final presentation, pointed out the triune nature of the universe with illustrations from the atom, planets axes, orbits, IO’s orbit, galaxies, and in Genesis 1:1.
The campus minister identified the person of the Creator God. Jeff Darby did an excellent job guiding us through the logic of a single choice for the Creator of the Universe. In the midst of thirteen science lectures this was a refreshing analysis.
This short review can only highlight a fraction of the new and exciting possibilities for how God created. The conference was wrapped up with questions from the audience, which were responded to in a panel discussion format.
I highly recommend that creation groups throughout the world obtain the video record of this seminar and review it in public meetings as widely as possible. Your audience will not be disappointed. I feel energized that creation science has made serious headway into this once abandoned area of creation science. We have been launched toward the solution of the problem of the creation of the universe in a very short Biblical time frame. Perhaps God did give us all the clues to understand His marvelous creation. Will these new theories survive scrutiny and observation?