The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

of space-time during the Creation Week introduced a region of space in which there was no passage of time (what Humphreys calls a “timeless zone), while much time passed in other regions of the universe, thus allowing for light to travel great distances in only a short time as measured on the earth. A further refinement in Humphreys’ model is a second stretching event that occurred at the time of the Flood in association with sped-up radioactive decay. Despite Humphreys abandonment of his white hole cosmology, that model remains popular. For instance, Samec and Figg (2012) and Samec (2014a; 2016) continue to attempt to constrain the white hole cosmology model. Hartnett (2003a; 2007a; 2007b; 2008) also has relied on general relativity in his solution to the light travel time problem, but has modified the normal four dimensions (three of space and one of time) with a fifth dimension (one of velocity). Within his 5D model, Hartnett has attempted to explain various astronomical phenomena, such as quasars and dark matter, in terms of recent creation. Another recent solution is the anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) proposed by Newton (2001) and Lisle (2010). All direct measurements of the speed of light involve a round trip of outgoing light reflecting off a mirror and returning to the point of origin. Most physicists assume that the speed of light is the same in all directions. Hence, the speed of light is determined to be the total distance traveled (twice the distance to the mirror) divided by the travel time. However, what if the speed of light is not the same in both directions? More specifically, what if the speed of incoming light is infinite, but the outgoing speed of light is half of what we normally think of as being the speed of light (as assumed by ASC)? The travel time will be the same, so direct measurements of the speed of light would yield the same result. One must assume that the speed of light is isotropic or anisotropic, because the experiment itself cannot distinguish between the two. Both the isotropic and anisotropic assumptions are consistent with general relativity. However, many people consider the anisotropic assumption to be weird or, at the very least, contrived. That may be the reason ASC has not acquired very many adherents. Recently, Hartnett (2015a, 2015b) has extended ASC and shown that this extension is similar to his 5D model. One aspect of the ASC has been misunderstood. Many people have thought that the ASC proposes that light truly has two speeds, infinite in one direction and half the accepted speed of light in the other direction. Lisle (2010) certainly gives that impression, but that paper merely was attempting to explain in more technical terms time conventions in astronomy and general relativity. The heart of the ASC model was better described by Newton (2001), where astronomical creation was along a shell that contracted at the speed of light to reach the earth at the center of the shell on Day Four. Finally, I have proposed my dasha , or matured creation , solution to the light travel time problem (Faulkner, 2013a). Rather than relying upon a physical mechanism as most of the other solutions do, I suggest that God rapidly made the astronomical bodies on Day Four and then miraculously brought their light to the earth on the same day. This is similar to the rapid growth of plants that took place on Day Three, as well as many other rapid directed processes that God used during the Creation Week. Forty years ago, mature creation was the only solution to the light travel time problem, but many people saw difficulties with it. Therefore, it is encouraging that we have so many proposed solutions the light travel time problem. However, are any of those solutions even close to being correct? COSMOLOGY Over the past two decades, there has been progress in developing a biblical cosmology. For a long time, biblical creationists had assumed that Genesis 1:1 describes God’s creation of the space of the universe at the beginning of Day One, while the rāqîa‘ (firmament or expanse) of Day Two referred to the earth’s atmosphere. However, creation scientists increasingly have suggested that the rāqîa‘ made on Day Two is what we call outer space (Humphreys, 1994a), or possibly outer space and much of the atmosphere as well (Faulkner, 2016b). Neither author has been clear about one point: there must have been space prior to Day Two, because the primordial earth and its water created on Day One required the existence of at least some space. More properly, this emerging view of Day Two involves the creation of primordial and relatively small space that God expanded into the universe on Day Two. Without a proper understanding of when God made the space of the universe (and when He expanded it), it is not likely that a good biblical cosmology is possible. Therefore, if this emerging idea is the proper understanding of Day Two creation, then it is a firm foundation upon which to construct a biblical cosmology. What will a biblical cosmology entail? Several things. The rāqîa‘ is something that was stamped, or spread, out. This meaning is captured well by the word expanse , which is how rāqîa‘ is translated in many modern English versions of the Bible. In Genesis 1:8, God called the rāqîa‘ “heaven.” This understanding of the rāqîa‘ is reinforced by the more than a dozen Old Testament passages that refer to the heavens being stretched out. Humphreys (1994c, p. 66) has discussed this at length, but Anderson (2017) recently has called into question some of Humphreys’ conclusions on theological and textual grounds. The purpose of the rāqîa‘ was to divide the waters below from the waters above. The waters below probably are the earth’s oceans, so the rāqîa‘ likely stretched from the earth. If the expanse of Day Two is properly identified with outer space, we can draw three conclusions (Faulkner, 2016b). First, the universe is finite in size and probably has an edge. This is contrary to most cosmological models today, which posit that the universe is infinite or, that if the universe is finite, it has no edge. Second, if the expansion of the rāqîa‘ was reasonably symmetrical, it implies that the earth is near the center of the universe. Again, this contradicts most modern cosmologies in that they do not allow the universe to have a center, and even of those models that do, they suggest it is extremely improbable that the earth would be anywhere near that center. I shall return to this point later. Third, there is water lying at the edge of the universe. In what form does this water now exist? Opinions vary. Most commentators prior to the 20 th century thought that the water above was in the form of clouds and moisture in the air. This agrees with the rāqîa‘ being the atmosphere, but it hardly seems viable if the rāqîa‘ primarily is space. Within the early modern creation movement, it was common belief that the waters were in the form of a vapor canopy. However, belief in the vapor canopy has waned considerably among biblical creationists, so we ought to rethink the cosmology underlying it. What are the options if this the rāqîa‘ includes what we now call outer space? Hartnett (2003b, 2006b) suggested that this water is in the form of ice inside comets and other objects in the outer solar system. This would place the stars beyond the expanse made on Day Two. Earlier, Humphreys (1994a) proposed that this water was synthesized into matter that eventually formed the astronomical bodies on Day Four. However, later, Humphreys (2008a) suggested that most of the waters above Faulkner ◀ Creation Astronomy II ▶ 2018 ICC 37